[Klaustrophobia]

does this mean we can toss al gore in jail when the world isn't flooded out?

[watsisname]

Interesting question, though a little quirky.  When is one able to decide that the world isn't "flooded out"?  How much sea level rise would have to occur to say otherwise?  And why Al Gore?  Why not all the scientists who actually study this subject?  They should be punished for being wrong, too.

Just FYI, the data shows that sea levels are rising by about 3mm per year (and accelerating) because of the combined effects of thermal expansion and melting land ice.  The science says it is expected to continue to rise in the future and pose significant problems for low-lying developed areas.  A collapse of ice sheets in Greenland and/or Antarctic would raise it even more drastically, which is what Al Gore was pointing out.

[Luis Dias]

Well, Gore was somewhat sleazy by pretending that the Antarctic was something in the "pipeline" to melt. It isn't. 3mm per year amounts to 30cm per century. Is this really something we should worry? Are people really unable to run from the seas' gigantic speed at 3mm * tan (shore inclination) per year?

Sea level rise not accelerating. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel1/sl_ns_global.pdf

[karajorma]

does this mean we can toss al gore in jail when the world isn't flooded out?

Does it mean we can toss those who denied man made climate change in jail if it ever is proven?

Although by that point maybe we'll have to toss them in Thunderdome instead.

[headdie]

does this mean we can toss al gore in jail when the world isn't flooded out?

Does it mean we can toss those who denied man made climate change in jail if it ever is proven?

Although by that point maybe we'll have to toss them in Thunderdome instead.

the latter would be more fun

[Luis Dias]

By that time, Tina Turner wouldn't be as sexy though. #wildguess

[watsisname]

Well, Gore was somewhat sleazy by pretending that the Antarctic was something in the "pipeline" to melt. It isn't. 3mm per year amounts to 30cm per century. Is this really something we should worry? Are people really unable to run from the seas' gigantic speed at 3mm * tan (shore inclination) per year?

Sea level rise not accelerating. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2012_rel1/sl_ns_global.pdf

Why are you looking at a 20 year trendline when we have data that goes back over a century?

Did you read through any of the papers from my prior links?

[Luis Dias]

The data in your graph shows a steady non-accelerating rate for over 80 years. The usual reason why I look to 20, 30 year old graphs is because that is the time where the first projections / predictions were made. Predicting the past is easy, I tend to watch if they can actually predict what has gone since the date they made their models.

[Aardwolf]

Uh... explain to me... what do they use as the reference point for those? How do they know that it's the water which has risen, and not that the land is sinking? Esp. in the era before satellites?

[Luis Dias]

That's a huge literature material, Aardwolf. Many techniques were developed over the decades, and thousands of readings recorded. There are some doubts to a degree to some decades' worth of data, but any controversy over these matters is about very subtle, small variations. Notice that watsisname's graph involves several different techniques and aggregators, and they pretty much agree.

[watsisname]

The data in your graph shows a steady non-accelerating rate for over 80 years.

You are correct, a linear trendline drawn from 1930 though 2012 is a good fit to that particular time interval.  But you are still being selective in your analysis.  Let's try some different perspectives:

The trendline on the 20-year graph you linked is 3.1 +/- 0.4 mm/yr. 
The 20th century rate is half of that. 
The rate for the interval before then is even less. 
The best fit for the whole set is an exponential function.
Science says this trend will continue, and is why I asked if you've been keeping up with the literature.

The basic point here is that in any examination of a trend with fluctuations, it is possible to pick specific time intervals and draw trendlines that appear to contradict the overarching theme.  I see this all too often with people claiming that "the earth hasn't warmed since 1998", or "there isn't a problem in the arctic because it's freezing up so rapidly this winter".  They are bad statistical arguments, and they completely miss the bigger picture.

[karajorma]

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the same person who started a thread complaining about lay people completely misunderstanding science and having a go at someone based on that flawed understanding is now the person doing it?

[LordMelvin]

No. No you are not.

[Luis Dias]

The data in your graph shows a steady non-accelerating rate for over 80 years.

You are correct, a linear trendline drawn from 1930 though 2012 is a good fit to that particular time interval.  But you are still being selective in your analysis.  Let's try some different perspectives:

The trendline on the 20-year graph you linked is 3.1 +/- 0.4 mm/yr. 
The 20th century rate is half of that.

So what. You are also being selective. You simply start the analysis in one point when I start in another. You say, it is best fit by an exponential function. I say, it is best fit by two linear functions. Both models work.

I know very well that some papers argue that the trend will accelerate (using the expression "Science says" is a reification of a much more mundane process of guesstimating the future). However, it has not since those projections were made.

The basic point here is that in any examination of a trend with fluctuations, it is possible to pick specific time intervals and draw trendlines that appear to contradict the overarching theme.  I see this all too often with people claiming that "the earth hasn't warmed since 1998", or "there isn't a problem in the arctic because it's freezing up so rapidly this winter".  They are bad statistical arguments, and they completely miss the bigger picture.

The big picture is, according to the IPCC, that man-made climate change has only affected the second part of the twentieth century. If this is true, then you cannot bring stuff from more than a century ago and argue that the "best fit" is an exponential curve (let's not pretend this isn't just a naive model of yours). You must see what has happened since this effect was established to be non-trivial. And that means the trend is amazingly linear. To deny this is to deny basic empirical assessments. Just use your eyes.

Am I the only one who finds it funny that the same person who started a thread complaining about lay people completely misunderstanding science and having a go at someone based on that flawed understanding is now the person doing it?

Where did I complain that lay people misunderstand science? Where was my understanding flawed? All I see from you is badly informed sarcasm, nothing of good coming out of it. You should be feeling bad.

[karajorma]

Your every post drips with examples where you, someone who isn't a climate scientist, claims that people who are climate scientists are wrong based on your limited understanding of climate science.

How is this different from the judge in the Italian case ignoring all the seismologists who said you can't predict an earthquake and instead acting based on his limited understanding of seismology?

[Topgun]

Just stop with hashtags

[Mars]

Where did I complain that lay people misunderstand science? Where was my understanding flawed? All I see from you is badly informed sarcasm, nothing of good coming out of it. You should be feeling bad.

Your whole original post was about lay people misunderstanding science as being some type of crystal ball. You're currently seeing it as a crystal ball that looks different depending on how one looks at it. The reality is that a huge majority of people in the field agree that climate change is caused by people http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html. And here you are pretending that the Earth is too big for humanity to drastically effect "like it's 1250".

EDIT:
I am not saying by the way, that you're any more tending to bias than anyone else. I am saying that this would appear to be a bias blind spot for you. I wonder if it's just this that you doubt the bulk of science on?

[watsisname]

The big picture is, according to the IPCC, that man-made climate change has only affected the second part of the twentieth century. If this is true, then you cannot bring stuff from more than a century ago...

Um.  Have you even read the IPCC reports?  Any of them?  Here, let me directly quote the results of WG1 for you. 

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence[7] that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2

So yes.  I can bring in the data from more than a century ago, because mankind has been fundamentally altering the thermodynamics of the Earth since over a century ago.

Also, regarding your earlier comment:

3mm per year amounts to 30cm per century. Is this really something we should worry? Are people really unable to run from the seas' gigantic speed at 3mm * tan (shore inclination) per year?

Perhaps you might benefit from reading about the impacts of sea level rise. 
The SREX Report has excellent material on it, too.

...

This whole subject of doubt about climate change and sea level rise reminds me of when Anthony Watt's of "wattsupwiththat?" made a post about Arctic sea ice extent continuing to expand during the spring and after the usual beginning of melt season.  And the jist of his post is to say "What's up with that?  If the earth is warming, why is the ice still freezing so late in the year?  Look!  It's almost above average!" 
Heck, I'll stop paraphrasing and just directly quote him:

While this event isn’t by itself an about-face of the longer downward trend we’ve seen, it does seem to suggest that predictions assuming a linear (or even spiral) demise aren’t holding up.

Yeah.  Well... look how 2010 ended up.  Now look at the whole trend.  A trend which has not failed to continue.
What was that about the "predictions assuming linear or [accelerating] trend not holding up", Mr. Watts?

I do not want to wait for all the predictions of climate change and sea level rise to be realized.  We as a species should be taking serious action, and we should have started doing so decades ago.

[Luis Dias]

Your every post drips with examples where you, someone who isn't a climate scientist, claims that people who are climate scientists are wrong based on your limited understanding of climate science.

How is this different from the judge in the Italian case ignoring all the seismologists who said you can't predict an earthquake and instead acting based on his limited understanding of seismology?

I did not say that "climate scientists are wrong". Will you stop putting words into my mouth please? I'm merely expressing my unimpressed stance on their sea level rise alarmism. Which is, if you check the actual data rather than witch hunt me, rather calm and unalarming (thank goodness).

The difference, even if I were saying nonsense, is that I'm doing so in a public forum where there is no practical consequence at all but a trivial informal conversation. I am not, due to my alledged ignorance, not putting someone to jail. If I were to do so, believe me I would read (at least skim!) every ****ing piece of scientific literature regarding the matter. To do otherwise would be utterly inhuman and barbaric.

Your whole original post was about lay people misunderstanding science as being some type of crystal ball. You're currently seeing it as a crystal ball that looks different depending on how one looks at it. The reality is that a huge majority of people in the field agree that climate change is caused by people http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html. And here you are pretending that the Earth is too big for humanity to drastically effect "like it's 1250".

EDIT:
I am not saying by the way, that you're any more tending to bias than anyone else. I am saying that this would appear to be a bias blind spot for you. I wonder if it's just this that you doubt the bulk of science on?

"Lay people" =/= Judge putting people to jail for 6 ****ing years. Don't confuse the two. The judge has no right to play the "lay people" card if he is throwing people's lives into the garbage like that.

I have different "beliefs" regarding the multiple claims of many fields. Some things I am fully ready to accept for the evidence is so strong. Some others not that willing. As an example, denying that the act of smoking causes cancer is asinine in this time and age. However, to be skeptical of the much weaker claim of second hand smoke is not in the same ballpark at all. The problem then becomes very suspicious when politics enters the arena and politicians claiming to be "saving our health" embark on a crusade against the freedom of people to smoke (I'm not even biased on that one, I actually enjoy the fact that I do not have to breath other people's smoke as I just hate it, however the political method here is frightening to me).

Regarding CC, my views are only "confrontational" in the sense that I dislike being spoon-fed politically correct views on it, so instead of reading editorials, I'd rather see plain data. Plain data tells me that it is more likely than not that carbon dioxide does indeed play a big role in current global warming. It also tells me that humans are still far away from understanding it and that they have probably overblown the case to a degree. I have, however, no power to put anyone in jail because I believe or disbelieve X. To put me in the same basket is silly.

The big picture is, according to the IPCC, that man-made climate change has only affected the second part of the twentieth century. If this is true, then you cannot bring stuff from more than a century ago...

Um.  Have you even read the IPCC reports?  Any of them?  Here, let me directly quote the results of WG1 for you. 

Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture.

Again, you are not reading correctly. While atmospheric concentrations of those greenhouse gases have increased "markedly" since 1750, the IPCC strongly makes the case this has done only a nontrivial effect on the atmosphere since the second half of the twentieth century.

Here for the correct source: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-7.html

The nice pictures here celebrate what I am talking about: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-9-5.html
Look carefully the second one and see the decade where their models of how stuff supposed to behave without GHGs deviates from reality.

So yes.  I can bring in the data from more than a century ago, because mankind has been fundamentally altering the thermodynamics of the Earth since over a century ago.

So no, you cannot.

Perhaps you might benefit from reading about the impacts of sea level rise. 
The SREX Report has excellent material on it, too.

Those silly "reports" make the stupid assumption that our lives depend too much from the natural world we inhabit. But this is not true, and definitely should not be true in the future. Natural disasters wreck poor countries and kill thousands because they are poor, badly managed and without any kind of emergency nets, not because someone drove a SUV in northern america.

So the best way to ensure these people will suffer these natural disasters is not, as you probably think, to continue to burn fossil fuels. It is by forcing them to remain poor. And before you think I am a conspirationist here, I am not. I am merely telling you here that the economy plays a role here which is some orders of magnitude greater than the problem of 3mm per year rise of the oceans. What I am saying is that the whole conversation lacks a sense of proportion.

And let's not bring the weather guy to the conversation. Any time someone makes a skeptic remark, the conversation is immediately polarized and the banana guy has to get into it somehow. What the hell.


EDIT: Thanks and sorry for the trouble, The_E.

[Mars]

What evidence would convince you of a human caused global climate change?