US to Stay in Paris Climate Accord

[Endus]

This AR5?
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r...FINAL_full.pdf

That's the Synthesis Report. The short version that cuts out a lot of the technical details and minor stuff, and combines the work of all three working groups. The full report (Working Group 1: Physical Science Basis; the other working groups can be connected to from the link as well but speak to other components like adaptation strategy) is here; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

[Allybeboba]

That's the Synthesis Report. The short version that cuts out a lot of the technical details and minor stuff, and combines the work of all three working groups. The full report (Working Group 1: Physical Science Basis; the other working groups can be connected to from the link as well but speak to other components like adaptation strategy) is here; https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

That was before the latest El Niño, the 2014-2016 one. As I stated earlier, latest El Niño(we are in a weak El Niño now and next year will be in La Niña) was one of the strongest we have had. Yet last year was a rather calm year for tropical systems and this was not so.

[downnola]

More recent assessments indicate that it isunlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major
hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North
Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in
the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the
1970s in that region.

Number isn't changing much. Frequency and intensity of the strongest storms, though, that's certain. It's right freaking there, and I've already quoted that excerpt once in the thread, so please don't pretend that it's not there.

To paraphrase the above; the total number of storms isn't changing. The number of strong storms is increasing, as is their intensity. Not more storms. Stronger storms.

Ok, I'll just repeat myself.

Doesn't this argument stem from the claim that climate change is making hurricanes like Harvey and Irma worse or more frequent?

I'm not contesting that there is an increasing trend in powerful storms. I'm contesting that you can causally link that to climate change with the data we have now.

More than 40 years, when this was published. And yes, it's plenty. As the IPCC report clearly stated.

We lack comparable data for other regions, which is why it's less certain a claim for those regions.

Tropical cyclones are not easy to observe because they're rare events. 30 or 40 years of data is not a robust data set for those kinds of storms, sorry. I have yet to read a research paper on tropical storms that doesn't stress that point in their paper. My point to you is that we need to be pretty damn careful in the sorts of claims we can back up with data. There are plenty of cases where the climate change science is absolutely un-fucking-deniable; this isn't one them.

[Felya]

That was before the latest El Niño, the 2014-2016 one. As I stated earlier, latest El Niño(we are in a weak El Niño now and next year will be in La Niña) was one of the strongest we have had. Yet last year was a rather calm year for tropical systems and this was not so.

Are you arguing that the data is missing the strongest warm ocean event, to prove climate change is wrong? Doesn't that align with what Ednus is saying? It doesn't seem to help your point...

[Endus]

Ok, I'll just repeat myself.

I'm not contesting that there is an increasing trend in powerful storms. I'm contesting that you can causally link that to climate change with the data we have now.

And you're still wrong, and ignoring source data that won't conveniently confirm your preconceptions.

Tropical cyclones are not easy to observe because they're rare events. 30 or 40 years of data is not a robust data set for those kinds of storms, sorry. I have yet to read a research paper on tropical storms that doesn't stress that point in their paper. My point to you is that we need to be pretty damn careful in the sorts of claims we can back up with data. There are plenty of cases where the climate change science is absolutely un-fucking-deniable; this isn't one them.

Literally linking you one such paper, regarding this point, and you're straight-up ignoring it because you, apparently, just don't want to acknowledge the facts.

- - - Updated - - -

That was before the latest El Niño, the 2014-2016 one. As I stated earlier, latest El Niño(we are in a weak El Niño now and next year will be in La Niña) was one of the strongest we have had. Yet last year was a rather calm year for tropical systems and this was not so.

Which isn't relevant. The multi-year variability in the El Nino oscillation is assessed in the section I described. I'm not even sure what you think your point is, any more.

[downnola]

And you're still wrong, and ignoring source data that won't conveniently confirm your preconceptions.

I read the report you linked, the sections you suggested in another post, and even read some of the papers that the report is based on. I'm simply repeating what's in the research.

By the way, which preconceptions do I have exactly? Are you going to try to box me in as a climate change denier now? Don't be ridiculous.

Literally linking you one such paper, regarding this point, and you're straight-up ignoring it because you, apparently, just don't want to acknowledge the facts.

I think you argue with climate change deniers so often that you assume anyone disagreeing with any of your points is just a close minded and overly-biased person. You misrepresented my argument from the very beginning and still refuse to acknowledge what I actually said. That's fine man, if this is any indication of how any further conversation is going to go, I'll just get back to work.

[Endus]

I read the report you linked, the sections you suggested in another post, and even read some of the papers that the report is based on. I'm simply repeating what's in the research.

By the way, which preconceptions do I have exactly? Are you going to try to box me in as a climate change denier now? Don't be ridiculous.

Am I specifying them? No. I'm describing your approach, which has been to ignore or dismiss evidence cited that doesn't say what you want it to say.

[Allybeboba]

Are you arguing that the data is missing the strongest warm ocean event, to prove climate change is wrong? Doesn't that align with what Ednus is saying? It doesn't seem to help your point...

Have I argued that my friend?

- - - Updated - - -

And you're still wrong, and ignoring source data that won't conveniently confirm your preconceptions.



Literally linking you one such paper, regarding this point, and you're straight-up ignoring it because you, apparently, just don't want to acknowledge the facts.

- - - Updated - - -



Which isn't relevant. The multi-year variability in the El Nino oscillation is assessed in the section I described. I'm not even sure what you think your point is, any more.

I am not even sure you think you know what my point is any more.

[Shalidor]

Trump is a bastard for making us stay in the Paris Accords! Obama or Clinton would have shredded them like a proper leftist!

[Mafic]

And to throw another curve ball to this discussion.

It was recently discovered that the eastern seaboard of North America is undergoing subsidence.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6GL068015/full

So here is the kicker...how much of it is sea level rise and how much of it is subsidence worldwide? In other words we are only just exploring the tip of the iceberg. We truly do not know.

This is why conservative projections and estimates of sea level are used, because when new information like this comes to light it throws off all the "models" and also makes any aggressive model regarding sea level rise fall like a rock.

[Endus]

And to throw another curve ball to this discussion.

It was recently discovered that the eastern seaboard of North America is undergoing subsidence.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6GL068015/full

So here is the kicker...how much of it is sea level rise and how much of it is subsidence worldwide? In other words we are only just exploring the tip of the iceberg. We truly do not know.

This is why conservative projections and estimates of sea level are used, because when new information like this comes to light it throws off all the "models" and also makes any aggressive model regarding sea level rise fall like a rock.

Subsidence isn't new or surprising; they've been recording and measuring this for decades.

Here's an article from 1948, making it clear that it's been recognized that the Atlantic coast was subsiding for at least 30 years by then; http://www.jstor.org/stable/211451

This isn't "new information". At all. It doesn't even really have anything to do with climate change, or sea level rise in general. Sea level rise isn't measured relatively to the coastline at a single point, it's measured relative to the global average. Some areas are subsiding, others are rising, and this has all been accounted for in the measurements for basically the last century now.

[Mormolyce]

And to throw another curve ball to this discussion.

It was recently discovered that the eastern seaboard of North America is undergoing subsidence.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...6GL068015/full

So here is the kicker...how much of it is sea level rise and how much of it is subsidence worldwide? In other words we are only just exploring the tip of the iceberg. We truly do not know.

This is why conservative projections and estimates of sea level are used, because when new information like this comes to light it throws off all the "models" and also makes any aggressive model regarding sea level rise fall like a rock.

Not to give this line of reasoning any credit, but wouldn't subsidance of the coastline exacerbate the impact of rising sea levels, not counter it?

[Mafic]

Not to give this line of reasoning any credit, but wouldn't subsidance of the coastline exacerbate the impact of rising sea levels, not counter it?

Exactly it does. It is a combination of both subsidence and sea level rise that may make it worse for the Atlantic coast. But this is an example of how it can throw off everything we have currently with models and start over possibly. Not likely a start over, but it is a soft reset if you want an analogy.

- - - Updated - - -

Subsidence isn't new or surprising; they've been recording and measuring this for decades.

Here's an article from 1948, making it clear that it's been recognized that the Atlantic coast was subsiding for at least 30 years by then; http://www.jstor.org/stable/211451

This isn't "new information". At all. It doesn't even really have anything to do with climate change, or sea level rise in general. Sea level rise isn't measured relatively to the coastline at a single point, it's measured relative to the global average. Some areas are subsiding, others are rising, and this has all been accounted for in the measurements for basically the last century now.

Subsidence measurements were assumed to be nelgible but new studies are turning that on its head. And it does change how we view everything as the American Geophysical Union link that I provided.

http://www.gps.gov/cgsic/meetings/2015/dixon.pdf

And here is another too.

[Endus]

Subsidence measurements were assumed to be nelgible but new studies are turning that on its head.

That's just flat-out and blatantly false. Neither of your sources remotely justify that kind of statement.

You are again conflating regional effects on relative coastline changes with global effects on absolute sea level. The two are not interchangeable.