tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post6110333753805351761..comments2024-03-27T23:59:49.801+00:00Comments on Stoat: Who knew what when?William M. Connolleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-50699490130303930742022-05-20T12:41:14.286+00:002022-05-20T12:41:14.286+00:00And (same source, lower down, and yes I'm bein...And (same source, lower down, and yes I'm being somewhat unfair):<br /><br />MARTIN HOFFERT:<br /><br />I’m 83 years old. Three or four decades ago, we predicted it... I'm furious.<br /><br />Notice the lack of precision. What's a decade here or there to MH, he is after all 83. But a decade is a long time. Note also the fury: there's no pretence of objectivity.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-5967603713904729032022-05-20T12:21:43.973+00:002022-05-20T12:21:43.973+00:00From https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-p...From <a href="https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-power-of-big-oil/transcript/" rel="nofollow">https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/the-power-of-big-oil/transcript/</a>:<br /><br />BENJAMIN SANTER, Lawrence Livermore Natl. Laboratory, 1992-2021:<br /><br />We knew. We knew in '95 that humans were affecting the global climate. In 1990, the First Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, concludes that it's too soon to tell definitively whether there is or is not a human-caused global warming signal. Five years later, a very, very different finding: People at different institutes, using different statistical methods, different models, formally identified a human-caused global warming signal. This was a paradigm shift in scientific understanding of the reality of human effects on climate.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38366731415754239142018-04-04T20:35:58.475+00:002018-04-04T20:35:58.475+00:00> http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/05/why-...> http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/05/why-do-science-in-antarctica/<br /><br />Sorry. When I imported the scienceblogs stuff to wordpress, I munged the URLs for some of the years but not the others. WP makes it hard, because while you can import, you can't overwrite, so you only get one chance. See <a href="https://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2017/10/16/welcome-to-the-archive/" rel="nofollow">welcome to the archive</a>.<br /><br />The re-write rule is:<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/X maps to http://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/X<br /><br />So in this case you want <a href="http://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/why-do-science-in-antarctica/" rel="nofollow">http://wmconnolley.wordpress.com/2007/02/05/why-do-science-in-antarctica/</a>.<br /><br />Every now and again, when I browse old posts, I edit them to be correct.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-91290119253652095252018-04-04T19:11:46.480+00:002018-04-04T19:11:46.480+00:00I'm surprised you'd want to draw attention...I'm surprised you'd want to draw attention to that thread, HR. 29 of the 37 non-spam (strictly defined) comments were by you.<br /><br />But try here:<br /><br />https://web.archive.org/web/20121103061311/http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/05/why-do-science-in-antarctica/<br /><br />- VBAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-36741975099195286952018-04-04T18:50:26.640+00:002018-04-04T18:50:26.640+00:00Say, speaking of climate science history, is this ...Say, speaking of climate science history, is this old thread still available anywhere?<br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/02/05/why-do-science-in-antarctica/<br /><br />The link just goes to the top of this blog, now.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-52131295488593252592018-03-29T23:05:58.102+00:002018-03-29T23:05:58.102+00:00Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global ...Fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide and the global carbon budget (1979)<br />https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Taro_Takahashi/publication/6031795_Fate_of_Fossil_Fuel_Carbon_Dioxide_and_the_Global_Carbon_Budget/links/56fd453008ae3c85c0c9c07c/Fate-of-Fossil-Fuel-Carbon-Dioxide-and-the-Global-Carbon-Budget.pdf<br /><br />"The fate of fossil fuel carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere depends on the exchange rates of carbon between the atmosphere and three major carbon reservoirs, namely, the oceans, shallow-water sediments, and the terrestrial biosphere. Various assumptions and models used to estimate the global carbon budget for the last 20 years are reviewed and evaluated. Several versions of recent atmosphere-ocean models appear to give reliable and mutually consistent estimates for carbon dioxide uptake by the oceans. On the other hand, there is no compelling evidence which establishes that the terrestrial biomass has decreased at a rate comparable to that of fossil fuel combustion over the last two decades, as has been recently claimed."<br /><br />On the carbon dioxide–climate confusion (1975)<br />https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/1520-0469(1975)032%3C2060%3AOTCDC%3E2.0.CO%3B2<br /><br />"A number of estimates of global surface temperature sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide to 600 ppm are collected here and critically reviewed. The assumptions and formulations that lead to differences between certain models' estimates are explained in some detail. Based on current understanding of climate theory and modeling it is concluded that a state-of-the-art order-of-magnitude estimate for the global surface temperature increase from a doubling of atmospheric C02 content is between 1.5 and 3 K with an amplification of the global average increase in polar zones. It is pointed out, however, that this estimate may prove to be high or low by several-fold as a result of climatic feedback mechanisms not properly accounted for in state-of-the-art models."<br /><br />If climate scientists could not close the carbon budget in 1979 (there are still some issues today with mostly the land sink AFAIK) and Schneider in 1975 stated that 1.5C < ECS < 3.0C I'm pretty sure you would have to pick a date post 1979.<br /><br />For me this is all new, the actual climate science history as it was presented in the peer reviewed literature of those earlier times. My own 1st hand knowledge only goes back to ~2005 but even there I would not rely on that history currently stuck between my ears (I also would not rely on any non=peer reviewed book purporting to be the history of climate science)Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-10352171448064103742018-03-29T15:51:04.941+00:002018-03-29T15:51:04.941+00:00"I think changing CO2 is a relatively small p..."I think changing CO2 is a relatively small part; the issue is what CO2 does."<br /><br />True today or in 1970, wasn't as true in 1950 or 1960. There was realistic doubt at that time based on the thought that the oceans would quickly absorb almost all of the added CO2.<br /><br /><br />"That applies to Vostok, too: you must be aware of the arguments about forcing versus feedbacks."<br /><br />Sure. Here is a good discussion of the issue. Far better than I could write.<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/<br /><br />Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-58878506140292682592018-03-29T09:54:46.247+00:002018-03-29T09:54:46.247+00:00Well, exactly. But blaming the Senators is going t...Well, exactly. But blaming the Senators is going to be tricky, so a cheaper shot is to go after the companies.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-35610261718659118392018-03-29T09:40:15.127+00:002018-03-29T09:40:15.127+00:00"unless the judge concludes that FF sponsored..."unless the judge concludes that FF sponsored propaganda was a significant factor in derailing efforts to reduce emissions."<br /><br />Given that (say) 50% of Republicans are climate change deniers, what are the odds that (say) 50/52 Republican Senators are climate change deniers? That's simple maths.Millicentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-1537497548644874352018-03-28T21:59:31.165+00:002018-03-28T21:59:31.165+00:00There can be no forgiveness.There can be no forgiveness.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-70601538571689393752018-03-28T21:51:57.028+00:002018-03-28T21:51:57.028+00:00WHC should be WMC. Damn it!WHC should be WMC. Damn it!Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-28433414051070244332018-03-28T21:50:47.425+00:002018-03-28T21:50:47.425+00:00Well it looks like I'm the finder of stuff ......Well it looks like I'm the finder of stuff ... <br /><br />The Saving of San Francisco Bay<br />(byline A Report on Citizen Action and Regional Planning By Rice Odell)<br />The Conservation Foundation<br />Washington, D.C.<br />Copyright © 1972 by The Conservation Foundation<br />http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/planning/reports/TheSavingOfSFBay_1972.pdf<br /><br />Beginning at the section titled "The Threat" ...<br /><br />"Slowly and steadily, man encroached on the shores and waters of the bay. So deceptive and gradual was the process-and so much was the splendid environment taken for granted-that few noticed what was happening. Man was preoccupied with other things-survival, housing, commerce, making a living, making a killing.<br /><br />The bay has always been a great temptress to fillers, not only because of its beauty and recreation potential, but also because so much of it is shallow enough to be filled economically. As planner Mel Scott said: "To attorneys, developers, title insurance companies, manufacturers of salt and cement, innumerable government officials, members of the state legislature and many others it is some of the most valuable real estate in California."<br /><br />And so it was treated by the state itself for decades. Much of the bay including marshlands, tidelands and submerged lands-was sold by the state to private interests, sometimes for as little as a dollar an acre, and sometimes under shady circumstances. The sales were not stopped until 1879 with adoption of a new state constitution. Some of the lands were filled and built upon; large areas were diked off and used as "salt ponds," for production of<br />salt from sea water by evaporation, or as wildlife preserves, or for farming.<br /><br />.<br />.<br />.<br /><br />With gradual shrinkage, the bay changed substantially. In 1850, when California was admitted to the Union, the surface of the bay at mean high tide was about 680 square miles. Little more than a century later, this had been reduced to some 430 square miles."<br /><br />It does have a happy ending of sorts circa 1972.<br /><br />Current ... State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance (2018 Update) ... <br />http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf<br />(PDF last updated 2018-03-05 so still rather hot off the presses so to speak)<br /><br />WHC, hope you don't mind my parking of links here, I think I'm about done with the links.<br />Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-21553568334375450392018-03-28T19:54:04.507+00:002018-03-28T19:54:04.507+00:00"Figure 4 and Tables VII and VIII (2 mm/yr +/..."Figure 4 and Tables VII and VIII (2 mm/yr +/- 0.2 mm/yr, so borderline)"<br /><br /> ... should read ... <br /><br />"Figure 4 and Tables VII and VIII (2 mm/yr +/- 2.0 mm/yr, so borderline)"<br /><br />Sorry about that one.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-53941986364816454812018-03-28T19:47:38.425+00:002018-03-28T19:47:38.425+00:00#CaliforniaKnew in 1932 ...
TILTING DUE TO GLACIA...#CaliforniaKnew in 1932 ... <br />TILTING DUE TO GLACIAL MELTING<br />https://authors.library.caltech.edu/43638/1/Gutenberg_1933p449.pdf<br /><br />Figure 4 and Tables VII and VIII (2 mm/yr +/- 0.2 mm/yr, so borderline)<br /><br />#CaliforniaKnew in 1955 (paywalled) ... <br />Tide Height Along the Coasts of the United States<br />http://cedb.asce.org/CEDBsearch/record.jsp?dockey=0353527<br /><br />1.8-1.9 mm/yr<br /><br />#CaliforniaKnew in 1962 (paywalled) ... <br />Sea Level and the Southern Oscillation<br />https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/6/4/532/664190<br /><br />Figure 5 is taken from the 1955 publication cited above<br /><br />#CaliforniaKnew in 1972 ... <br />MONTHLY SEA LEVEL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS AND THE CALIFORNIA COAST<br />https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/70-3/saur.pdf<br /><br />Figure 2 (2.0 mm/yr +/- 0.21 mm/yr)<br /><br />What is rather remarkable is the ~2.0 mm/yr has held up for so long (1932-2018) ...<br />https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/est/est_station.shtml?stnid=9414290<br /><br />"The monthly extreme water levels include a Mean Sea Level (MSL) trend of 2.01 millimeters/year with a 95% confidence interval of +/- 0.21 millimeters/year based on monthly MSL data from 1897 to 2006 which is equivalent to a change of 0.66 feet in 100 years."Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-3679887913465091002018-03-28T12:45:36.519+00:002018-03-28T12:45:36.519+00:00I think changing CO2 is a relatively small part; t...I think changing CO2 is a relatively small part; the issue is what CO2 does. That applies to Vostok, too: you must be aware of the arguments about forcing versus feedbacks.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-24105524238240167612018-03-28T12:38:33.427+00:002018-03-28T12:38:33.427+00:00I'd suggest several different events.
1) Keel...I'd suggest several different events.<br /><br />1) Keeling curve, by the mid 1960's at the latest. This removed all realistic doubt that we could change the CO2 content of the atmosphere.<br /><br />2) Vostok ice core, 1985. This removed all realistic doubt that CO2 and temperature were closely related.Philhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07567197089095711546noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-49976915560236407982018-03-28T01:29:15.521+00:002018-03-28T01:29:15.521+00:00I'd say the scientific community knew about AG...I'd say the scientific community knew about AGW when serious peer reviewed papers disputing AGW stopped getting written. If I have my history right there were some respectable challenges to AGW on grounds such as absorption window saturation and ocean capacity to absorb Co2 which were resolved roughly mid century?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10991158238881697311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-37153988556144313912018-03-27T21:25:57.801+00:002018-03-27T21:25:57.801+00:00"Not all people need/use tobacco, however, al..."Not all people need/use tobacco, however, all people do need/use energy. Wants versus needs."<br /><br />Everett might give it a try - the climate wars are certainly a two pipe problem.<br />THE CLIMATE WARShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02578106673226403151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-25846740694932501262018-03-27T21:00:53.657+00:002018-03-27T21:00:53.657+00:00Did Wadhams and Munk (2004) get sekrit monies from...Did Wadhams and Munk (2004) get sekrit monies from the oil companies?<br /><br />Ocean freshening, sea level rising, sea ice melting<br />http://faculty.fgcu.edu/twimberley/EnviroPol/EnviroPhilo/Freshening.pdf<br /><br />"Uncertainties in our estimates are large and do not exclude a negative eustatic rise, that is, a net movement of water mass onto the continents. Nevertheless we do obtain a total rise which is at the lower end of the range estimated by IPCC."Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-32920076806603761112018-03-27T20:20:39.585+00:002018-03-27T20:20:39.585+00:00#CaliforniaKnew in 1960! As it should come as no ...#CaliforniaKnew in 1960! As it should come as no surprise that Revelle, Kelling and Munk were all at SIO at that time.<br /><br />COASTAL WATER TEMPERATURE AND SEA LEVEL-CALIFORNIA TO ALASKA (1960)<br />http://calcofi.org/publications/calcofireports/v07/Vol_07_Stewart.pdf<br />(thermosteric changes seen in Figures 90-100 while Figure 101 shows SF sea level rise circa 1898-1957, 0.005 foot per year ~1.50 mm/yr)<br /><br />Ironically, Munk concludes ... <br /><br />"Munk: Raubrich and I have obtained the power spectrum from mean monthly sea levels for all stations (one dozen) having more than a century of record. For frequencies lower than the annual frequency the spectrum is a typically noisy (or continuous) spectrum, with no significant frequency “lines”, not even well developed broad bands. It is then predictable only in the sense the stock market is predictable."<br /><br />Fast forward to 2002 and Munk gave us (a denier favorite) ...<br />Twentieth century sea level: An enigma<br />http://www.pnas.org/content/99/10/6550.long<br /><br />So I say that Munk takes all the blame, he single handedly set back sea level rise research by about four decades (meh slight exaggeration).Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-12741981669979196592018-03-27T19:51:06.503+00:002018-03-27T19:51:06.503+00:00nonetheless the principle that emitting large and ...<i>nonetheless the principle that emitting large and increasing amounts of CO2 was indeed clearly visible by then, and well agreed on</i><br />There's something amiss in this phrase, I'm afraid.wereatheisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11023808397322064245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-37321959091098861172018-03-27T18:18:28.855+00:002018-03-27T18:18:28.855+00:00> and so are always very conservative
Agreed. ...> and so are always very conservative<br /><br />Agreed. But then again, so are large companies and govts. Well, some of them. And the IPCC was setup because of concern - that's self-proving - but also in the absence of certain knowledge - ditto. So it is "evidence" for both sides.<br /><br />I also agree re the views of experts, but 1-4 oC is a very wide range (probably 1.5-4.5 is better). You could, perhaps, plausibly argue that ~1979 the range was 1.5-4.5, and there was good hope of narrowing it. By ~1990 that hope was still there, by 2001 it was rather weaker. Today I think one would say that the "true believed range" (whatever that might mean) is narrower, but still distressingly wide, and the hope of narrowing it significantly soon, still weak.<br /><br />> San Francisco and Oakland already knew<br /><br />Indeed; see the #CaliforniaKnew link.William M. Connolleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05836299130680534926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-38245359109745578582018-03-27T16:15:14.015+00:002018-03-27T16:15:14.015+00:00[As you know, ...]
IPCC reports are agreed by all ...[As you know, ...]<br />IPCC reports are agreed by all the governments, and so are always very conservative. The IPCC was originally set up because of serious concern about AGW, so it's obvious to deduce that such concern was sufficiently serious, and sufficiently widespread, at sufficiently high levels of sufficiently powerful governments, to create (first some advisory group and then) the IPCC, and then (after the FAR) the whole UNFCCC/COP system.<br />It is my clear recollection that a widespread view among experts in the mid 1980s was that anthropogenic gases would probably cause several degrees of warming (let us say: 1-4) per century, and that over the course of a few centuries this would lead to many metres of SLR. That big picture hasn't really changed in 30 years.Nick Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00057838251997644583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-86097183913913972732018-03-27T16:07:52.148+00:002018-03-27T16:07:52.148+00:00Forgot NOAA RSL link ,,,
https://tidesandcurrents...Forgot NOAA RSL link ,,, <br />https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=9414290Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7612793.post-67229945506435158182018-03-27T15:26:05.123+00:002018-03-27T15:26:05.123+00:00Geodetic leveling and the sea level slope along th...Geodetic leveling and the sea level slope along the California Coast<br />https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/JB084iB11p06195<br /><br />"This trend indicates that San Pedro is rising with respect to San Francisco or that San Francisco is subsiding with respect to San Pedro at an average rate of about 70 mm/yr. However, an examination of the tidal records does not reveal large changes in the trend of mean sea level with respect to the land at the tide stations. Hicks and Crosby (1972) report that the mean sea level trend with respect to land (1940–1972 series) is −0.3 mm/yr at San Pedro and +1.8 mm/yr at San Francisco. Thus the indicated relative movement rate (70 mm/yr) from leveling is about 30 times greater than the rate indicated by tidal observations. The reasons for the large discrepancy between relative movement rates from repeat levelings and tidal observations are presently unknown."<br /><br />So 1.8 mm/yr RSL for San Francisco was already known in 1972.<br /><br />So 46*1.8 mm/yr = 8.28 cm (the last 46 years, 1972-01 thru 2018-01 inclusive = 1.73 mm/yr).<br />and from 1897-09 thru 1971-12 = 1.96 mm/yr (yeah, I picked a low starting point because NOAA said "Apparent Datum Shift" break in time series, so sue me).<br /><br />So if anthropogenic reclamation of former swamp land and lack of timely renewal of coastal infrastructures (which has been going on nationwide for nearly a century now) in an area with an extremely high available tax base ... well then you figure out who exactly is at fault. Personally, I blame San Francisco and Oakland.<br /><br />Does this scenario even sound remotely familiar to the general AGW situation? I think it does.Everett F Sargenthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00201577558036010680noreply@blogger.com