June 28, 2024

"The Vanishing Islands That Failed to Vanish/Low-lying tropical island nations were expected to be early victims of rising seas."

"But research tells a surprising story: Many islands are stable. Some have even grown."

The NYT reports. That's a free-access link, my last of the month. There are many details and diagrams — and beautiful photographs — at the link. It's a complicated phenomenon, so please try to understand it (and don't just guess that the seas are not rising!).
[W]hen the world began paying attention to global warming decades ago, these islands, which form atop coral reefs in clusters called atolls, were quickly identified as some of the first places climate change might ravage in their entirety.... Then, not very long ago, researchers began sifting through aerial images and found something startling. They looked at a couple dozen islands first, then several hundred, and by now close to 1,000. They found that over the past few decades, the islands’ edges had wobbled this way and that, eroding here, building there. By and large, though, their area hadn’t shrunk. In some cases, it was the opposite: They grew. The seas rose, and the islands expanded with them.... 
The seas had risen an inch or so each decade, yet the waves had kept piling sediment on the islands’ shores, enough to mean that most of them hadn’t changed much in size. Their position on the reef might have shifted. Their shape might be different. Whatever was going on, it clearly wasn’t as simple as oceans rise, islands wash away....

80 comments:

Sebastian said...

"it clearly wasn’t as simple as oceans rise, islands wash away"

What else isn't as simple as the alarmists tell us?

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Update: Miami, scheduled to be underwater by 2000 is in fact not yet underwater in the year 2024.

CJinPA said...

Interesting. I expected more side-by-side photos to make the point, but overall very informative.

"Climate change" is one of those topics on which I'm not confidently informed enough to have a hot take. (Health care policy is another.) I recognize 2 things: 1. Temperatures might be rising, but we're not sure it's caused by humans; 2. Every crisis identified by the Left just happens to require solutions long sought by the Left, including more government (political) control and less freedom.

Kate said...

Humans have chosen to establish a civilization in a beautiful, unstable location. It's an atoll! Climate change could be completely absent and these islands would erode and rise. I love the sense of adventure -- it's almost like choosing to live on Mars or the moon. It shouldn't be considered a benchmark for global warming, though.

rhhardin said...

Saving islands isn't a priority in any case. Just move.

Hassayamper said...

Every crisis identified by the Left just happens to require solutions long sought by the Left, including more government (political) control and less freedom.


Done forget the much higher taxes, and lots and lots of cushy sinecures for college graduates who would otherwise be serving drinks at Starbucks.

AlbertAnonymous said...

Why is this surprising? Don’t you remember that the Lord God Obama stopped the rising of the seas and saved the world for us?

rhhardin said...

It looks like any coral reef tropical island. Spend a few days on one and you're over it pretty thoroughly.

Leland said...

don't just guess that the seas are not rising!

That's fair, but I wish more people would understand it. The past couple of years have been hotter than the years just prior. Not because of who is President. Not because of human activity. We had a major disruption of our atmosphere caused by the Hunga Tonga event. It released into the air the very GHG gasses and water vapor that scientist have noted can increase global temperatures.

This is important, because it could validate the science behind global warming. And personally, I think it has shown something to it, because we have had back to back El Nino's and obvious change in climate for the Western US, which has gone from severe drought to increased rain fall. But "scientist" in the media downplayed the event, because it was a human caused event, rather than using it to validate the science. And while I think it has shown something that would support the science, it still seems like a minor issue and the downplaying suggests real science is showing the same.

My $.02 for free.

Oh, and the solar maximum happening this year isn't doing us any favors in terms of heat relief.

stlcdr said...

The 'seas are rising' is used as a euphemism for Man Made Climate Change, and nothing to do with the rise in sea level at any given location. Similarly 'climate change' is a sociopolitical statement, and nothing to do with the continuously changing climate over any given period.

Understanding that sea levels are changing (increasing) and the climate is changing does not mean that one believes (sic) in the cult following that 'Climate Change' has.

Darkisland said...

the fascists have been peddling these lies since the 80s. They came into full glare with Gore's book (since stealth edited) "Earth in the Balance" in 90 or so.

By 2000 (or earlier) Manhattan would be underwater, the arctic ice cap would be gone, "snowfalls would be a thing of the past" seen only in snow globes, temperatures would be 15 degrees warmer, disappearing islands and a whole bunch of other nonsense.

Can anyone name me a prediction that has come true? Or even one that, based on actual measurable trends, looks like it has some chance of becoming true by the date prediscted in the 90s?

No?

Surprise, surprise.

John Henry

JAORE said...

A inch a decade? ONE INCH?

Geez those 20 foot rise predictions will be a long time a comin'. And 240 decades is 2400 years.

I'm pretty sure the brain power, appropriately directed, and a tiny fraction of the trillions needed for "carbon" reduction, could take care of an inch a decade.

Humans adapt. We do it well. Always have.

When allowed.

Václav Patrik Šulik said...

About 10 years ago, I went to a number of islands. Citizens of Yap, which has a number of small mountains, were worried about rising oceans. On the other hand, people I spoke with in the Marshalls, which is a low lying series of atolls, were not concerned. Indeed, in most places, you could see the ocean on both sides of the island you were on. Nevertheless, no one was worried about rising seas. It struck me as odd, but I guess the Marshallese were correct.

Aggie said...

The essence of the argument is a motte & bailey exercise: Climate Change is insinuated as a human-caused effect, for which we all bear responsibility - in the same vein as an original sin. When in fact, Climate Change is part of the earth's natural function, mostly driven by the Sun -Earth's climate is always changing, and there are short, medium, and longer term cycles that overlay and pose a complexity that exceeds human ability to model or even accurately assess, much less predict.

But it's sin that we're selling, and it's you that must attone. When the awkward 'evidence' stuff like this starts appearing, that's the only time the High Priests of Climate retreat to the motte. They go quiet, but they refuse to go away.

Darkisland said...

Blogger Leland said...

The past couple of years have been hotter than the years just prior.

How much hotter, Leland?

The claim is hundredths of a degree for something that probably can't be measured to within plus or minus 5 degrees C or more and for which we only have a couple dozen years that might fit in the +/- 5 degrees.

The claim is based on models, not measurements. Let me build the model and I can prove that temperatures are 20 degrees below the temperatures of the 1970s. Or 30s, or 1600s or whenever.

Let me build the model and I can prove that the moon is made of green cheese. And I'll bet I would get it published in a peer reviewed journal.

Are you a scientist? I am! I have 2 science degrees. So don't you dare argue with me on this! Trust the science, trust the scientists, trust me.

John Henry

Joe Smith said...

Obama has 2 realllllly expensive properties on the ocean.

All you needed to know...

The rule of Lemnity said...

The Vanishing Islands is the work of alien visitors from outer space.

Robert Marshall said...

Regarding free-access links to the NYT: any NYT link can be viewed in its entirety, free of charge and with no subscription, using https://archive.today.

You can either (1) copy-paste the pay-walled URL into the archive page, or (2) if you use the Chrome browser, download their extension which gives you an icon to click when a web-page (like paywalled NYT links) blocks your access.

Either way, if someone else has already archived the pay-walled link, the result is displayed instantly. If not, then it might take a minute or two to download all the elements of the page, but it's pretty quick either way.

Why pay-walled sites like NYT or WaPo haven't figured a way around this loophole in their pay-wall, is beyond me. It's there, and it's apparently legal to use it.

Darkisland said...

One of the reason some islands are disappearing is massive and I mean MASSIVE sand extraction.

If you live on a sand island and sell the sand, eventually you will have no island left. It didn't sink, it was removed.

Search sand pirating for a bunch of fascinating information on sand extraction

John Henry

Aggie said...

BY the way, I've lived on a few islands and visited a few more, and I can tell you, definitively: Every single one of them had areas of reclaimed land, bays and estuaries that had been backfilled with the sides of hills or harbor dredgings, piled up, compacted - and then developed. Every single one. The US coastline is exactly the same way. Guess what: Oceanfront property is valuable enough that it pays to make more of it - So says Mr. Market. The gradual inching rise of sea level is a product of rebound, a consequence of losing the weight of the ice from the last glacial age, and it's so slow, you can stay ahead it with a shovel and a wheelbarrow and not even break a sweat.

Darkisland said...

Trust the science, trust the scientists, trust me.

That should have had a sarcasm tag.

Trust nobody. Not even me. Not even yourself.

John Henry

The rule of Lemnity said...

*visiting illegal aliens from outer space

Bob B said...

The islands submerging is proof of climate change/global warming. Therefore, we need to spend more money.
The islands not submerging is also proof of climate change/global warming. Therefore, we really need to spend more money.

Two-eyed Jack said...

I remember reading about this at Wattsupwiththat back in 2010. So the only surprise is that NYT readers are being let in on the secret.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/27/floating-islands/

chuck said...

Can anyone name me a prediction that has come true?

Yes, the seas continue to rise at about 3mm/year, as they have for centuries. Do I get a cookie?

There actually has been some flooding, Doggerland went underwater thousands of years ago, and parts of the British Isles more recently, as in centuries ago.

Wince said...

Hassayamper said...
Done forget the much higher taxes, and lots and lots of cushy sinecures for [like-minded] college graduates who would otherwise be serving drinks at Starbucks.

Fixed it for you.

Whiskeybum said...

Let me get this straight. Climate alarmist have been insisting for the past 20+ years that there is a direct cause and effect: you drive an ICE car: the seas rise and islands/coastlines disappear. When the actual evidence for this goes directly against the simplistic cause-effect narrative, then we must all understand the subtle complexity of the climate change arguments - after all, there is still ample room for them to be correct in some 'bigger picture' way! (i.e., we must still proceed with the Climate Agenda despite what we observe).

Oh well... the pictures are beautiful and give us all a warm fuzzy feeling that the Climate Alarmist are on the right track anyway and protecting us from our own selfish actions without any adverse consequences.

JK Brown said...

"The seas had risen an inch or so each decade, yet the waves had kept piling sediment on the islands’ shores"


An "inch" each decade? That would explain the 7-9" sea level rise from 1880-2018....for those who can't do arithmetic. And the truth is, even that measurement is fraught as only the Tide and Waterlevel gauges are leveled in and verified every few years. Leveling over a series of marks that extend from the gauge on the variable shoreline to marks established in more stable geologic/structural areas helps show whether the water is rising or the gauge is sinking. Then you have the tsunami gauges which are not leveled in since they are looking for waves in the 10s of minutes to few hour range. And can't say about now, but in the early 1990s, the Sealevel program gauges weren't well installed but used statistics to look for changes.

One thing left out, there's not a lot of sediment in the blue ocean to "pile up" and the guano that filled the volcanic rocks on others isn't replaced as fast as it was removed for selling. Maybe the volcanos are swelling deep in the Earth?

phantommut said...

Sometimes science is simple. If the oceans are rising, why isn't the land sinking?

When observed data doesn't match theory, it isn't the data that's wrong.

traditionalguy said...

Oops. This means the famous 97% of scientists scaming the system for dough about CO2 were 100% wrong.

Looks like we’re gonna need a Conspiracy Theorist of the Year Turning Out Right award. But there are so many candidates out there it swamps that idea.

How about a few thousand apologies. No suicides needed.

BillieBob Thorton said...

I'm still waiting for the islands to flip over

Meade said...

“this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal ..."~~Barack Obama upon winning the Democratic nomination for presidency conveys his thinking of what that means ....for the world, Tuesday, JUNE 03, 2008”

― Barack Obama

Darkisland said...

Blogger chuck said...

Yes, the seas continue to rise at about 3mm/year, as they have for centuries. Do I get a cookie?

No but I'll give you a Triscuit.

First question for this and any other measurement: Plus or minus how much?

If they say +/- 0.1mm, I say bullshit. If they say +/- 1 foot, I would say "perhaps but so what?"


Tides rise and fall all over the world twice daily. Sometimes by a few inches, sometimes by dozens of feet. Never exactly the same amount 2 tides in a row. Meters are uncalibrated, may be sinking or rising, and a host of other issues.

Yet somehow they can measure 3mm rise over the entire world.

Again, are they measuring or modeling?

I might believe that they can measure a 3mm rise at one specific tide meter. Maybe. Subject to a lot of qualifications.

The world? Not likely.

John Henry

Darkisland said...

Blogger phantommut said...

When observed data doesn't match theory, it isn't the data that's wrong.

The data can be wrong also. I won't get into all the problems measuring temperature accurately except to say that it is a relatively (20 years or so) recent art outside the lab.

Or even defining "accurately" or "Precisely" but unless any temperature value comes with a +/- attached eg 2024 is hottest year by 0.02 degrees +/- 5 degrees, I call bullshit.

Yes, a single reading of single thermometer may be much more precise. Perhaps even +/- 0.01 degrees.

John Henry

Paddy O said...

I'm fairly progressive on environment issues so I've always been open and interested in learning about the real impacts on this issue. The fact that environmental groups don't care about the most serious national polluters is a big cue for me (if India a et al were spewing radioactive waste there would be immediate response). The fact that the very wealthy and powerful, like the Obamas buy up beach front property tells me what they really believe gaving been in positions to know the unfiltered reports.

This article is another indication. If levels aren't rising and there needs to be explanations about why not that still supports the policies, it shows the policies have other goals in mind and the article really just confirms the indications the first two cues.

I'm against real human suffering and against environmental abuse. Those two things are in tension because of the way we have to use our environment. But the powerful and oppressors have always taken real issues a ND magnified them to gain more power and more wealth and cause more oppression through "addressing" the issue. It's a Roman peace where the powerful gain but most have to suffer more to help the wealthy feel better.

When the "cure" is worse than the problem something has gone very wrong. Something has definitely gone very wrong in our egregious corrupt politics and agencies.

I wish we had a better way than to choose either corruption and harm or excusing the actual issues.

I like living in a place and era that is cleaner than decades before.

Oligonicella said...

Darkisland:
The data can be wrong also. I won't get into all the problems measuring temperature accurately except to say that it is a relatively (20 years or so) recent art outside the lab.

Precisely this - it's an art not a science and, like any art, there are interpretations subject to taste, belief and whim.

Bob Boyd said...

Realtors are God's chosen people.

chuck said...

Again, are they measuring or modeling?

Measuring, there is a fair amount of data, and while there is a lot a variance in the individual measurements and between locations, and problems with land subsidence/uplifting, I think that number is fairly accurate. The recent trend, IIRC, is a bit lower at 2.8mm year. Despite the variance, height is easier to measure than temperature and has more stable averages. That said, cherry picking sites can lead to trouble, ala Michael Mann, all of whose papers seem to have similar problems.

I agree with the land based temperature measurements, heck, even walking around the yard, the temperature can vary by several degrees, even the paint on the thermometer enclosures can have an effect. Add in site location, changes in environment, the declining number of instruments, and data manipulation, and things look bad. I have more trust in the satellite measurements because of coverage and instrument stability, but they only go back several decades. Even there it is hard to say exactly what the temperatures mean, but I think the trends can be informative.

Lawnerd said...

They make some bullshit argument that as the seas have been rising the islands have also been rising. Un-fucking-believable. I always thought that global warming theory would eventually die when its predictions failed to materialize over time. But no, they will just explain away the lack of any changes.

Bob Boyd said...

The islands are hot and swollen.

Hassayamper said...

I no longer have any faith that government scientists, or those who take government money to support their research, can be trusted.

Back in the 90's we were told that scientists who downplayed the global warming scare were to be disregarded because the oil companies were financing their research to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. Well, nowadays the oil companies have bent the knee to the climatistas, and their paltry research support has been replaced by a torrent of BILLIONS of government dollars for climate research.

And the pressures on scientists to deliver what the check-writers want (i.e. justification for higher taxes, more government jobs, more government power, and diminished liberty for the citizens) have never been higher. You don't just lose your funding these days if you fail to back governmental aggrandizement. You lose tenure, or you lose your job, or your terrorized family is awoken by a screeching black-clad mob daubing your house with red paint in the middle of the night.

Are scientists suddenly more ethical than they were back in the 90's? More willing to stand up for their beliefs and the integrity of their research? More willing to deliver results that challenge the interests of their financial benefactors? Are they, in sum, made of finer clay than the rest of us?

The reproducibility crisis, of which this "unexpected" discovery about tropical islands is a manifestation, strongly suggests not. It happens in climate science, it happens in medicine, it might even happen in such hard sciences as physics when you look at how much money has been pissed away on nuclear fusion.

Darkisland said...

The recent trend, IIRC, is a bit lower at 2.8mm year.

Plus or minus how much?

If you can't answer that you should delete your comment.

As for measuring vs modeling, yes, they start with measurements. Individually, each of those individual measurements may be reasonably accurate, within 6" to a foot plus or MINUS.

Then they aggregate all the data from a measuring station adjust it to satisfy all sorts of things. Then they take the adjusted data from all the stations and adjust them as well.

The aggregated data is not measured, it is modeled. Even if it started with measurements.

Depending on the models they use and the assumptions built into the models, they can get whatever value their funding source is expecting.

Jerry said...


John Henry:

Measuring the overall temperature of a single room to an accuracy of 0.1F is almost impossible without a network of temp sensors hitting about every cubic inch. There's a temp gradient floor to ceiling, corner to corner. And if you've got an air vent in the room, or someone walks through it, it'll all change. Plus, don't forget each of those sensors has to be calibrated to the same standard.

High precision measurement is damned tough. I've worked with folks in a calibration lab, and what they had to go through to calibrate the temp sensors they'd occasionally get was nuts. So you can't tell me you can measure the entire planet - from the Arctic to the Antarctic, pole to pole, including the equator, dawn to dark to dawn again - to an accuracy of 0.01 degree.

And as Chuck pointed out above - even something like your back yard has microclimates that can vary a whole lot. Satellite measurements... they could be more accurate, but without providing an error range you really can't tell all that much more than looking at your hallway thermostat and extrapolating that temperature across the entire house.

Leland said...

How much hotter, Leland?

Well John Henry, I'm not really impressed by 2 degrees, whether using Kelvin, Celsius, Fahrenheit or Science. I was going by days over 100. That's the data for my claim and it is quite measurable. I can't vouch for the other claims you noted. Let me know when the scientist can explain why those 2 years don't look like the other 10 before them. Until then, my hypothesis is it had something to do with the largest global event of that time frame, and that event wasn't caused or preventable by humans.

Jerry said...

DarkIsland (John Henry?) -

-----------
Depending on the models they use and the assumptions built into the models, they can get whatever value their funding source is expecting.
-----------

Bingo. If you're paid big bucks to find out how much of a problem there is, you'd better find there's a problem and the bigger the budget the bigger the problem there should be.

The thing that pisses me off is that we've spent BILLIONS to fight 'climate change'. Some countries (Looking at Germany, for example) have hamstrung their economies to 'fight climate change'. They went all-in on wind and solar, even going so far as to dump nuclear power after Fukushima (because Germany is so very prone to tsunamis, I guess) - and now they're having to build more coal power plants because they don't have enough electricity.

But in the battle to fight CO2 production, apparently some countries are allowed to produce all they want. China and India are building more and more coal-fired power plants to meet their needs. (China's also building more nuclear power plants - and good for them.) We could hamstring ourselves here in the US and kill our economy by going Net Zero CO2, or even negative - but it wouldn't make one bit of difference because India and China would more than take up the slack.

Usable energy is wealth. It makes people's lives better. Limiting energy use causes economic harm - as Germany found out.

imTay said...

Yeah, the kids are going to see soon enough that they have been sold a bill of goods by a large cabal of lying megalomaniacs who have corrupted every once respected institution in quest for power.

Mark said...

It's almost like reef atolls were never an accurate barometer of sea level shifts.

Whereas I wouldn't be buying property on the beach in the Outer Banks, where climate related increases will probably hit higher and harder.

imTay said...

"This means the famous 97% of scientists scaming the system for dough about CO2 were 100% wrong."

That number was always deceptively presented and included large numbers of scientists who have concluded that any impact of CO2 on the planet will be negligible or beneficial. All you had to do to get put into that "consensus" was to make the obvious point that the impact of CO2 on the climate is non-zero. See! Even I am part of that consensus, though a STEM education doesn't make me a "scientist," I admit.

imTay said...

"It's almost like reef atolls were never an accurate barometer of sea level shifts."

Cue the GIF of Daffy Duck tap dancing.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

But what do real estate prices in the Outer Banks signify?

traditionalguy said...

@imTay… the World Government guys started this by imitating the Trial Lawyers con from the 1980s. That’s why lawyers immediately called BS on it.

The con is making up a Science complete with Treatises, University Depts and Chairs bought for cash donations to the totally corrupt EDU institutions. Then those faux EXPERTS were then presented to Juries as if their made up credentials had the last word. What came out was multi billion dollars in awards for made up damages causation .

Note that only those bought fake experts ( and they always knew they were fake) had the legal monopoly to scam money from
juries in Damage cases. Remember John Edwards that was Kerry’s VP. That was his gig that made him a multimillionaire lawyer.

So politicians like Al Gore jumped in with both feet FOR THE WEALTH they expected from this CO2 idiocy.

ITS ALWAYS BEEN ALL FAKE ALL THE TIME.

Darkisland said...

I was being facetious about deleting your comment absent +/-

John Henry

Darkisland said...

Blogger Jerry said...

Measuring the overall temperature of a single room to an accuracy of 0.1F is almost impossible without a network of temp sensors hitting about every cubic inch.

Yup, absolutely though I'd remove the decimal point.

I used to run the Engineering Department on a pharmaceutical manufacturing campus (faster.ranking.paradise) including the metrology department for all industrial instrumentation.

I will be happy to discuss the 3-4 weeks we spent trying to validate the temperature profile of a 20X30X10' room used for off-gassing sterilized components. It was supposed to maintain a uniform temperature of 120 deg F. We had to prove to the FDA's satisfaction that it did.

It involved a 40 (or so) channel Kaye datalogger, 40 or so, NBS traceable thermocouples, heat sinks for a couple of thermocouples to record a constant, known, temperature 10 or more people spending most of their time on the project

And more...

In the end we convinced the FDA we had it under control to a degree or so. We never convinced me. At least not that we could maintain that under normal operation with doors opening and closing, autoclaves opening, hot bags of components and so on.

Temperature measurement is easy-peasy Just look out the kitchen window at the RC Cola thermometer nailed to the tree. That is plenty accurate 99% of the time.

Accurate and precise temperature measurement outside of controlled lab conditions by skilled technicians is really difficult.

(And don't get me started on controlling that temperature)

John Henry

Darkisland said...

Some of the thermometers used to track antarctic temperatures were last calibrated in 1948.

Official NIST recommendation for calibration of glass/mercury thermometers is every 6 months.

Many govt thermometers used to be calibrated by dunking them into a bucket of icewater. That will give you confirmation of 1 point OC/32F

If:

Pure distilled water is used
Ice made from pure distilled water is used
The proper mix of ice and water are used
The bucket is insulated

Otherwise the temp of the water can be 31-33 degrees, or further off.

Further,

The thermometer is read while immersed
The person doing this knows how to read a thermometer. Not hard, but does require knowledge

And that still only measures 1 point. You need at least 2, preferably 3 (min, max middle)

Leland said...

I will be happy to discuss the 3-4 weeks we spent trying to validate the temperature profile of a 20X30X10' room used for off-gassing sterilized components. It was supposed to maintain a uniform temperature of 120 deg F. We had to prove to the FDA's satisfaction that it did.

Were you required to warm the robot to 120F before it went in and out of the room to store or retrieve the sterilized components? I'm pretty sure you didn't warm the humans to 120F before they entered. Oh wait, you didn't want to talk about controlling the temperature.

chuck said...

but without providing an error range

They have that, the instruments are frequently calibrated against black bodies, which of course require temperature measurements, but the problems are well understood. There has been some instrumental drift detected and corrected, and IIRC, there have been some arguments, but I don't think the process has been corrupted, unlike Hansen's treatment of terrestrial temperature records.

The numbers I have seen for sea level rise are about +/- 0.3 mm/yr. The advantage is that the data is fairly stable and trends can be measured over many years. Temperature, OTOH, can vary drastically on scales ranging from days to centuries to millennia and over distances of a meter. I think the take away is that sea level rise is not accelerating and 12 inches per century isn't something to worry about.

My most recent laugh at climate models is here. The climate models really suck at small scale, non-linear processes.

Darkisland said...

Leland,

Interesting data for Houston. It looks like it is actual measured data. Days over 100. Not "Days the heat index feels like over 100" and I will take it as fairly trustworthy.

It looks like most of the 146 years there were 0 as in zero, none, no, days over 100. 1902 had the second highest number with 19. 1909,02,11 were also years with an unusually high number of days at 16-19.

And then somehow, in 2023, they have 39 days over 100?

I question the data. Maybe right but it looks odd. I'd want to check the calibration certificates of the thermometer. Or whether there was a change in location (exposed to jet blast perhaps?) or even just another set of readings from 5 miles away.

John Henry

imTay said...

The problem is similar to trying to measure the rise in a swimming pool as a boy pees into it while a bunch of other boys are splashing around in it, making waves. It could be that they are splashing out water faster than he can pee it in, who knows? My analogy is probably actually solvable, but when you get to the atmosphere, the randomness just overwhelms the signal, and the only way you can "prove" that there is a signal is by running your models and calling them experiments.

Darkisland said...

Oh I'll be happy to discuss temperature control, Leland. I just don't think you really want to get me started and it is off topic here anyway.

What do you want to discuss? 3-15psi pneumatic process controllers? Cam thermostats where you have to cut the cam/disk with scisors to get the desired profile?

This was in the 80s. No robots, just operators schlepping bags on metro carts. Class 100/ISO5 cleanroom. Gowned up in bunny suits so perhaps approaching 110 degrees.

We convinced the FDA that, in a steady state, with no activity in the room and plenty of time for the bags to equalize we had a reasonably uniform temperature. Emphasis on reasonably. Wild swings anytime anything happened in the room.

It was good enough for the FDA and thus good enough for my boss. That is all I needed.

John Henry

traditionalguy said...

Incidentally, the Great CO2 Hoax has always included the fascist cancel culture demanding arrest and death for all skeptics.”
Which is where the WuhanFlu got its clout. Scientific doubt is deemed the same as murder and all credentials, liscences and public speech seized.

William50 said...

Ah yes the FDA. I worked for a medical device manufacturer for 30+ years and became very familiar with those fine folks. I still have my copies of JCGM 106 - "Evaluation of Measurement Data - The Role of Measurement Uncertainty In Conformity Assessment." If you're involved in calibration you don't leave home without it. :)

Temujin said...

Weirdly, our home in the coastal Gulf region of FL hasn't vanished underwater, as predicted by some of our relatives in New York, 8 years ago. Not exaggerating. They still fear for us. I like to ring them up on extremely cold winter days up north, from the beach or tennis courts down here.

Leland said...

I question the data.

As a good scientist should. I actually guessed, because I was here in Houston during those days, and it was certainly over 100, and there seemed more of them than previous years. So when you asked me for data, it didn't take much of a query to find the data. I can't be sure if some of the days were 100, which may or may not be over 100. Still, my over all point was those two summers were hotter than the 2 summers prior, and again, I would think other good scientist would find that interesting and want to know why? But they don't seem to care why? And since I think I know why, I have an idea why those that make money off climate change being anthropometric don't want to talk about the 146 teragrams of water vapor added to atmosphere in a very short amount of time.

I should note that we've had some very cold winters too, but the days below freezing probably aren't that interesting in the dataset. Let me see if I can find some data... same site: https://www.extremeweatherwatch.com/cities/houston/yearly-days-below-32-degrees Yeah, not very useful.

Regardless, I think you understand me, and I appreciate your challenge. BTW, my experience is actually working with NASA thermal models, but for the Space Shuttle. I learned when to trust them and when not to trust them. As complicated as modeling heat transfer for an object entering the atmosphere, the overall system being modelled is easier than the Earth's climate, yet even that simpler model was wrong and was very prone to false positives.

Hey Skipper said...

@Leland: That's fair, but I wish more people would understand it. The past couple of years have been hotter than the years just prior. ... We had a major disruption of our atmosphere caused by the Hunga Tonga event. It released into the air the very GHG gasses and water vapor that scientist have noted can increase global temperatures.

If memory serves, Hunga Tonga injected 15 *trillion* tons of water vapor into the stratosphere. Considering that the stratosphere has lower humidity than the Sahara, that is a huge amount.

That is why we are seeing higher temps lately. Nothing to do with human activity at all. Climate catastrophe stories never mention that inconvenient truth.

Mason G said...

Bob B @ 9:47 AM pretty much nailed it.

Greg the Class Traitor said...

The seas had risen an inch or so each decade

Sorry, but that's bullshit.

If the seas had risen 4 inches since 1980, then no amount of "ocean deposited sediment" would have fixed that

Josephbleau said...

On the internet you can find 1944 and today images of Omaha and Utah beach. The bunkers, obsticles and sea walls are right where they were then. The tide comes, but all is still there. Hansen was quite wrong but still a great hero, just another guy with a falsified hypothesis. He said the 9a in nyc would be flooded by 2000.

Rusty said...

Mark said...
"It's almost like reef atolls were never an accurate barometer of sea level shifts.

Whereas I wouldn't be buying property on the beach in the Outer Banks, where climate related increases will probably hit higher and harder."

And yet the tanker pier at Come-By-Chance is still above water.
Come-By_Chance is a town in Newfoundland. The tanker pier is part of an oil refinery.

Oligonicella said...

Play with this Missouri averges and see for yourself how much variation has been recorded.

Oligonicella said...

Hassayamper:
I no longer have any faith that government scientists, or those who take government money to support their research, can be trusted.

You never should have. Anyone relying on the volume of published papers will tailor not only their study target but the data to yield the most magnetism for grants. It's always been that way.

It happens in climate science, it happens in medicine, it might even happen in such hard sciences as physics when you look at how much money has been pissed away on nuclear fusion.

Peanuts. Colliders. At least with nuclear fusion, if the 'research' were ever to bear fruit, you'd have a product. With colliders it's bootstrapping. The product is simply the next biggest collider to produce the next higher levels of energy for research to show us the need for another level beyond that.

Oligonicella said...

I lost a long term friend over the collider argument, suggesting we've yet to use all the data we have now and don't need another more expensive one.

Europe is pushing forwards with plans to build a 91-kilometre-long, 15-billion-Swiss-franc (US$17-billion) supercollider underneath the French and Swiss countryside.

That's $2 dollars from the pocket of every man, woman and child on the face of the Earth. We have better uses.

He suggested that wasn't all that much. I suggested he pony up the difference for those who weren't interested in the high velocity physics outcome.

Enigma said...

The environmental anti-growth left very consciously adopted CO2 and global warming in the 1980s as an umbrella strategy for ulterior motives. They said this openly at the time: Wrap up a whole bunch of environmental and economic concerns under the CO2 menace to "stuff a potato in the tailpipe of global growth." In those words.

"Science" politicians such as Michael Mann and Al Gore found a new topic and a way to stand out of the crowd for tenure, research grants, and winning elections. "The science is settled. We have only 10 years to act." Then that slipped to "Only ten more years to act" because there was plenty of resistance to their anti-fossil fuel proposals. Then the UN warming models were proven to be way, way, way exaggerated, so they shifted to saying "global weirding" was going to happen rather than "global warming."

Now the nominal greens want to mine all the lithium from the planet for their phones and electric cars...

Politics is always about covering for early lies and mistakes. The sins of the father carry on for seven generations.

ceowens said...

John Henry. Is that facility just off 925?

John henry said...

Ceowens,

Yes, in Barrio Junquitos.

It was Alcon laboratories when I worked there. 76 to 85.

Sounds like you know it?

John Henry

ceowens said...

John Henry

Unfortunately no. I just used the words.

Rusty said...

Oligonicella said...

Just make Fermi lab bigger.

typingtalker said...

Thank you for this, Ann. More interesting than the upcoming election.

With respect to studying the Maldives, the data so far reminds us that we often don't know what we don't know.

John henry said...

I love www.what3words.com

John Henry

John henry said...

Current meatspace location

Feeds.tiling.destined

At a50th high school reunion

My wife was one of their teachers.

John Henry

Josephbleau said...

Regarding the "Missouri Data"
If you regress Highest Temperature with Year the p val is .3386, so there is no relationship with increasing years and increasing temps. So there is no global warming in Missouri. It would be better to have daily data instead of yearly average.

SUMMARY OUTPUT

Regression Statistics
Multiple R 0.084936108
R Square 0.007214142
Adjusted R Square -0.000603069
Standard Error 1.520795706
Observations 129

ANOVA
df SS MS F Significance F
Regression 1 2.134394063 2.134394063 0.922853681 0.338552213
Residual 127 293.7280866 2.312819579
Total 128 295.8624806

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0%
Intercept 59.01602881 7.045354787 8.376587212 8.65307E-14 45.07454313 72.95751449 45.07454313 72.95751449
X Variable 1 0.003454271 0.003595754 0.960652737 0.338552213 -0.003661077 0.010569619 -0.003661077 0.010569619