Joined: November 13th, 2010, 12:37 pm

March 5th, 2018, 2:41 pm #81

Leland33 wrote:
sugarmagnolia wrote: “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
NASA
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Again, I’m still an “on the fence” believer about the cause of climate change.

To me it’s simple, climate change seems to exist and it’s time to plan action.

However I DO THINK the chart has a couple problems.  

1. The chart start at 160ppm on the left - why not start it at 0ppm?   Change the scale?

2. The 1950 spike misrepresents the actual data - the thickness of the yellow line is at least 1000 years based on the 400,000 year base.

3. I would like to see a much smaller CO2 range from say 1712 to 2018.  Techically data levels could have dropped below 300ppm especially since the founding of the EPA in 1970.
Here you go -- not quite back to 1712, but is 1744 good enough for you? 

We have direct measurements of CO2 only since 1958, when Keeling set up the observatory on Mauna Loa (readings in red). The blue data points come from ice core measurements. 


Last edited by Fortune Cookie on March 5th, 2018, 2:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2010, 12:37 pm

March 5th, 2018, 2:43 pm #82

If you want to look more closely at the Keeling curve, here it is. No more worries about the thickness of the line, eh? 

₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 20th, 2007, 11:54 pm

March 5th, 2018, 2:53 pm #83

I finally got power back 6 PM last night and finally managed to download my camera.
https://capeannimages.blogspot.com/2018 ... ather.html

Broken Footbridge.jpg FW Statue.jpg Breaker 2.jpg Big Wave 2.jpg
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 5th, 2018, 3:34 pm #84

sugarmagnolia wrote:
Leland33 wrote:
sugarmagnolia wrote: “The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia.”
NASA
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Again, I’m still an “on the fence” believer about the cause of climate change.

To me it’s simple, climate change seems to exist and it’s time to plan action.

However I DO THINK the chart has a couple problems.  

1. The chart start at 160ppm on the left - why not start it at 0ppm?   Change the scale?

2. The 1950 spike misrepresents the actual data - the thickness of the yellow line is at least 1000 years based on the 400,000 year base.

3. I would like to see a much smaller CO2 range from say 1712 to 2018.  Techically data levels could have dropped below 300ppm especially since the founding of the EPA in 1970.
"This graph, based on the comparison of atmospheric samples contained in ice cores and more recent direct measurements, provides evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution. (Credit: Vostok ice core data/J.R. Petit et al.; NOAA Mauna Loa CO2 record.)"

So
1. Evidently the ice cores showed at least 160ppm.
2. The chart has to be readable.
3. The ice cores are also recording the CO2 levels before (well, well before) and after 1970 as well as direct measurements.

The rest of the web page has other compelling arguments as well.
Nope, I see your point SugarMagnolia but still disagree.  The “Y axis” could have been re-scaled 0 to 400 and would still be readable.

At first seeing the 1950 “spike” is alarming and might engender a “yikes” IF INTERPRETED AS CO2 IS OUT OF CONTROL.  When in fact because of the “X Axis” covers HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS the spike isn’t a spike but from 1700 to current-day would probably show the CO2, had just adjusted to a new level.  

That chart, SugarMagnolia, I am sure tricked people into BELIEVING a FAKE spike in CO2 about to go through the roof.

To me the data is more believable by putting a customary circle around the spike and reference another chart with data from 1700 (steam engine) to present-day - showing current levels of CO2.

I was impressed by the cyclical data over hundreds of thousands of years but not the “trick spike.”
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2010, 12:37 pm

March 5th, 2018, 4:06 pm #85

What is so "trick" about the spike? Levels of CO2 are at an unprecedented high and increasing at an unprecedented rate. 

Derp. 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 5th, 2018, 4:13 pm #86

Fortune Cookie wrote: If you want to look more closely at the Keeling curve, here it is. No more worries about the thickness of the line, eh? 

Well, still not sure about cyclical nature - I see the 1700 to present and it appears NOT TO TAIL OFF or at least yet. Thanks FC and S/M.
Last edited by Leland33 on March 5th, 2018, 4:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: November 13th, 2010, 12:37 pm

March 5th, 2018, 4:33 pm #87

Leland33 wrote:
Fortune Cookie wrote: If you want to look more closely at the Keeling curve, here it is. No more worries about the thickness of the line, eh? 

Well, still not sure about cyclical nature above 300ppm - how does the data look 1700 to 1960?
I posted that in the posting I made a few minutes before this one. Just scroll up and take a look. 
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Fortune Cookie
₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪₪
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 5th, 2018, 6:31 pm #88

Well if I had to get off the fence right now I would definitely jump to “humankind” as the cause.

The free world has been trying to make positive changes towards climate change but the bulk of the world has messed up for so long they are trying to make due with the Paris Accord (China and India).

Is there an App that gives trends by world region that might peel the onion a bit? Sea level changes. Square miles of Artic ice lost, variation in temperature on a hundred different areas, flooding, hurricanes, tornados, lightning strikes - all going back to the year 1700?

The concept of three orders of magnitudes of change has always interested me. The concept is if you have a change of three order magnitude you get REAL CHANGE. Computers is a good example. A gigabit of storage in 1980 cost $10000+ (10^4) wherase today it’s under a dolllar (10^1) - three magnitude of change (4-1). Similar for computer operating speeds.

As far as CO2 parts per million it appears a change of 30 or 50%
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: February 19th, 2010, 9:12 pm

March 5th, 2018, 6:38 pm #89

I did one of my regular walks around Magnolia on Saturday afternoon.  It was hard to recognize.  Today too.  The tide so high that our beach didn't exist. On Saturday the roads were blocked and flooded.  I've never seen such waves here. And serious damage to many Magnolia kids' focal point...the pier. And we probably had it easier than so many parts of the city.  At my house, we had some fallen trees that caused significant damage but nothing that can't be fixed.  I heard that Charlie Baker got splashed today here.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: December 22nd, 2007, 10:06 pm

March 5th, 2018, 7:27 pm #90

Leland33 wrote:
The concept of three orders of magnitudes of change has always interested me.  The concept is if you have a change of three order magnitude you get REAL CHANGE.  Computers is a good example.  A gigabit of storage in 1980 cost $10000+ (10^4) wherase today it’s under a dolllar (10^1) - three magnitude of change (4-1).  Similar for computer operating speeds.

As far as CO2 parts per million it appears a change of 30 or 50%
Well, if you think REAL CHANGE needs three orders of magnitude, I suggest you tell your doctor that he shouldn't worry about you being overweight until you reach 160,000 lbs.

peregrine
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 5th, 2018, 9:06 pm #91

Karly wrote: I heard that Charlie Baker got splashed today here.
Yes, he did:





And this:


http://www.gloucestertimes.com/multimed ... caf9a.html
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 5th, 2018, 9:11 pm #92

ohyesshedid wrote: I know what you mean, Cathy!  I went with a friend into Magnolia yesterday to check out the 52 Shore Road sea wall, and coming around that corner at the very end was pretty scary/breathtaking.  With the water still splashing up over the wall, I felt like my car was going to get sucked into the ocean.  Even thinking about it makes my heart race a bit.  Great photos!
Thanks!  Heart-thumping, indeed.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 5th, 2018, 9:14 pm #93

Dun Fudgin wrote: I finally got power back 6 PM last night and finally managed to download my camera.
Yikes - that was a long haul.  Nice pics - and you found the bridge!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: June 25th, 2007, 6:00 pm

March 5th, 2018, 9:25 pm #94

Way on the left of that video you can see our mayor, moving back before the wave arrives :)
Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?...   ..........
 George Orwell , 1984
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 5th, 2018, 9:36 pm #95

peregrine wrote:
Leland33 wrote:
The concept of three orders of magnitudes of change has always interested me.  The concept is if you have a change of three order magnitude you get REAL CHANGE.  Computers is a good example.  A gigabit of storage in 1980 cost $10000+ (10^4) wherase today it’s under a dolllar (10^1) - three magnitude of change (4-1).  Similar for computer operating speeds.

As far as CO2 parts per million it appears a change of 30 or 50%
Well, if you think REAL CHANGE needs three orders of magnitude, I suggest you tell your doctor that he shouldn't worry about you being overweight until you reach 160,000 lbs.

peregrine
I meant that whatever change still survives three OOMs.

Remember Mr. Creosote in “Monty Python’s Meaning of Life”?
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 1st, 2011, 11:07 pm

March 5th, 2018, 9:52 pm #96

I was good I didn’t get out until the all clear.  In Rockport TWharf was closed and st 4PM Brew Brothers coffee was full with people. I didn’t expect a full tray of Donuts.  Pidgeon Cove looked okay but all Stockport Beaches were closed.  In Gloucester EPLH parking was closed due to football sized rocks.

I saw someone stopping everywhhere and was thinking it was gov CB - light blue luxury SUV with an all number plate.

The clean up in the back shore was very good and the Elks Lodge was feeding four NG bucket truck crews.

Nice shots Dun and Cathy.  

Who did the spread sheets, Cathy?  I’m learning GoogleSheets now.
Last edited by Leland33 on March 6th, 2018, 12:38 am, edited 2 times in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: August 13th, 2005, 5:30 am

March 5th, 2018, 10:02 pm #97

Leland33 wrote: Who did the spread sheets, Cathy?  I’m learning GoogleSheets now.
A City staffer, I guess.  I thought it was cool and the City was touting it on FB, Twitter and the City's site, and then ... it has not been updated since I posted it ...   :- /
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: April 15th, 2006, 1:02 am

March 6th, 2018, 8:31 am #98

I realize that a lot of you weren't around here in 1991 but this storm looked like a baby next to the damage done by that one.  (or 1978 for that matter either).  This would have to be #3 on my list.  (although I don't remember the marsh effect which got to homes on both storms this year ever being like that) 
You think you know it, but you haven't got a clue!!
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: March 30th, 2007, 12:27 am

March 6th, 2018, 10:09 am #99

Weather is one thing, climate another. Our storm damage costs will be insignificant compared to the climate costs with rising sea levels, desertification and displacement of hundreds of millions of people around the world. The extreme hardship and economic turmoil will require people of the earth to work together and not fall apart fighting and grabbing resources.
You make a living by what you get. You make a life by what you give..
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: September 1st, 2012, 8:06 am

March 6th, 2018, 10:25 am #100

NightStalker wrote: I realize that a lot of you weren't around here in 1991 but this storm looked like a baby next to the damage done by that one.  (or 1978 for that matter either).  This would have to be #3 on my list.  (although I don't remember the marsh effect which got to homes on both storms this year ever being like that)
I was...and wasn't - having just been married here that September and just moved to CA. In-laws were living here. We saw all the pics and heard frequent updates by phone. It's not the intensity of a particular storm, but that they are becoming more frequent is the issue. Button up/batten down for tomorrow!
Quote
Like
Share