<DrumBeat: April 10, 2008 The Oil Drum Converging Environmental Crises Teach-In>

218 comments on Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

xeroid on April 11, 2008 - 6:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So, you agree - overall the world is warming - the sea level proves it - change IS happening. If the temperatures are changing that means climate is too. Clearly from your charts this is normal even without man's actions.

What is not normal is burning of fossil fuels (that have taken millions of years to accumulate) in a few tens of years - this causes a massive discontinuity in C02 levels and it is MAN MADE, so it is avoidable - any climate changes resulting from this will likely be discontinuous also and, by implication, avoidable.

Because of inertia you would never expect to see simmultaneous cause and effect - there WILL always be a time lag.

The sea level is a proxy for AVERAGE temperature change and because of the huge bulk of the Oceans there is massive inertia - near the North pole where we see the normal (self limiting, due to the curvature of the Earth) positive feedback from melting sea ice the temperature changes (and climate changes) are way more than average - this implies that elsewhere the changes will be less than average (where glaciers are not retreating? ... the South Pole?)

However, few places have zero change in temperature and hence zero change in climate.

History tells us to expect climate change, it is not change that is the potential problem but RATE of change.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 10:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So this then begs the question, when will the rate of sea level start to accelarate? If all these glaciers are melting, and have been because of AGW of some 20-30 years now, why has that water flow into the seas not increased the rate of rise? It also begs the question, if this lack of rise, if it continues flat, kill AGW theory?

So realize what you are saying. You are saying that there is no sea level rise at the moment that is caused by AGW. Thus all the media reports, all the hype about the CURRENT sea level rise is flat wrong right? You can't have it both ways. If the current trend is flat and, as you claim, the change in the rate is yet to come, then the current rate CANNOT be from AGW. Thus all the hype that it is from AGW must be wrong. By your own admission.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
yartrebo on April 11, 2008 - 10:31am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sea level doesn't change on a dime. It is probably the slowest acting effect of global warming.

If you do look more closely at the recent data (the last 100 years or so), the sea level rise is accelerating, though quite modestly. At this point it's nothing terrible, but it does have the potential to become much worse.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 11, 2008 - 11:16am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Did you not read the abstract?

"Extending the sea level record back over the entire century suggests that the high variability in the rates of sea level change observed over the past 20 years were not particularly unusual. The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century (2.03 ± 0.35 mm/yr 1904–1953), in comparison with the latter part (1.45 ± 0.34 mm/yr 1954–2003). The highest decadal rate of rise occurred in the decade centred on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) with the lowest rate of rise occurring in the decade centred on 1964 (−1.49 mm/yr). "

And you have a reference to back up your claim it won't turn on a dime, and you have a reference that it will become much worse. And you fully agree then that the current rise, in spite of Gore and others, is NOT currently from AGW. Right?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
xeroid on April 11, 2008 - 3:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I don't know what the future will be and neither do the IPCC researchers - or you! Not least because nobody knows what all the variables and feedbacks are.

The climate research gives probabilities not certainties - if you are looking for certainty you won't get it. The data the IPCC and others use is statistical and has error bars, it is not 100% accurate and you need to take lenghty periods of time (decades) to get a feel for what is happening. The statistics are not as accurate as you think they are (nor are the IEA and EIA oil statistics, on a month by month basis!)

Is there climate change? ... yes! North Polar ice melting more and more for one good example! Will the climate of some parts of the world change adversely in the future ... Yes!

Is man responsible for part of the change? ... yes! How big a part? ... nobody knows! The historical temperature data does not go up in straight lines during warming periods and it won't do now - just because the temperature is not doing what you think it should for AGW does not mean there is no AGW due to fossil fuel burning.

Is man's use of fossil fuel, horizantle drilling, non-organic farming, overfishing etc etc sustainable ... NO!

Peak oil, peak food, peak population and peak pensions are just a few of the unsustainable challenges besides anthopogenic climate change facing man.

BAU means an uncertain world - get used to it.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on April 12, 2008 - 10:00am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Richard is just trying to bamboozle you by changing the plot scales. The sea level rise is accelerating and he has already been corrected on this point on this list.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 11:56am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Then you better tell the IPCC as their 2001 report says: “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected.” The 2007 report says: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear."

Include in your letter to the IPCC a copy to Holgate from the above reference I cited.

Interesting, Chris, you did not provide a reference. Please do so. How much is the change in the rate? You did not say.But I do have references that shows it has NOT changed From:
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/22/unbelievably-d...

Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently. Real studies and model studies of sea level change deny the untrue assertions in the article. And there are far, far too many such studies for me to cite them all. So, I provide the following as examples.

Church, J.A., White, N.J., Coleman, R., Lambeck, K. and Mitrovica, J.X. 2004. Estimates of the regional distribution of sea level rise over the 1950-2000 period. Journal of Climate 17: 2609-2625.

Cazenave, A. and Nerem, R.S. 2004. Present-day sea level change: observations and causes. Reviews of Geophysics 42: 10.1029/2003RG000139.

Lombard, A., Cazenave, A., Le Traon, P.-Y. and Ishii, M. 2005. Contribution of thermal expansion to present-day sea-level change revisited. Global and Planetary Change 47: 1-16.

Jevrejeva, S., Grinsted, A., Moore, J.C. and Holgate, S. 2006. Nonlinear trends and multiyear cycles in sea level records. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JC003229.

In the above references, Church et al. say their "best estimate" of the rate of globally-averaged sea level rise over the last half of the 20th century was 1.8 ± 0.3 mm/year. In addition, they noted that "decadal variability in sea level is observed, but to date there is no detectable secular increase in the rate of sea level rise over the period 1950-2000." What is more, they reported that no increase in the rate of sea level rise has been detected for the entire 20th century, citing the work of Woodworth (1990) and Douglas (1992).

More refs:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/01/04/lowering-sea-leve...
(Kolker, A. S., and S. Hameed. 2007. Meteorologically driven trends in sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L23616, doi:10.1029/2007GL031814.)

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/09/14/sea-level-slowdow...

Wöppelmann et al. note that “two important problems arise when using tide gauges to estimate the rate of global sea-level rise. The first is the fact that tide gauges measure sea level relative to a point attached to the land which can move vertically at rates comparable to the long-term sea-level signal. The second problem is the spatial distribution of the tide gauges, in particular those with long records, which are restricted to the coastlines”. The records that we do have contain any number of inhomogeneities related to observer and instrument changes – the IPCC estimates of sea-level rise may be even less accurate that we are led to believe.
...
OK – here’s the bottom line. When Wöppelmann et al. factored their measurements of land motion into the estimate of sea-level rise, they determined a global value of 1.31 ±0.30 mm per year compared to the 1.8±0.5 mm per year value given by the IPCC for the recent half century. We understand that the IPCC acknowledges a low-end value of 1.3 mm per year in their estimate, but another way to look at this article is that Wöppelmann et al. just reduced observed sea-level rise by 27%! Perhaps the IPCC should reconsider whether they still have high confidence that the rate of sea level rise has in fact increased from the 19th to the 20th century.

Of course, these results gained absolutely no press coverage whatsoever – imagine the coverage they would have received had their results increased sea-level rise by 27% and suggested that sea level rise was occurring faster then previous research indicated!

Wöppelmann, G., B. Martin Miguez, M.-N. Bouin, and Z. Altamimi. 2007. Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant tide gauges world-wide. Global and Planetary Change, 57, 396–406.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mdsolar on April 13, 2008 - 8:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Richard,

it is not possible to debate with you because you do not do so in good faith on this issue. As a simple exampe, you ask for references and links from me now when you know that I have already demonstrated your contention to be false here on TOD.

Chris

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 12:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I post references, even if i have to do it several times. If it is false that sea level has not changed its rate then SHOW US!! How difficult can it be to get a ref and post it? None! So do it, back up your claim with one reference.

I have already shown by the references above that the rate of sea level rise has NOT changed. How on earth is that NOT on good faith?!

If there is any lack of good faith it's your claim that this is MY contention when all I have done is post the references, hence it is the conclusion of these researchers that there has not been any change in the rate. So go take your disagreement to them.

Dogmatism at its best again.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 9:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

While you are at getting that reference, send it to this too, I'm sure they will be receptive to be shown by you that they are wrong.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on April 13, 2008 - 10:02pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Did you actually read this chart or was this just another quick and dirty cut and paste job?

Just looking at the graph, sea level increased by 5 inches from 1850 to 1950. It increased by more than 6 inches from 1950 to just past 2000. The total increase appears to be greater in the latter 50 years than in the previous 100 years. The graph is misleading, as an absolute change in 50 years which is greater than an absolute change in 100 years can't have the same slope. The annotation "trend continues at same slope" appears to be wrong and could just be b.s. on your part.

So, no, this graph seems to show that you are wrong and supports others on this site arguing that you are wrong.

Perhaps you could draw the line from 1800 to compare 100 years with 100 years. But that would not support your conclusions.

Not to mention that last decade or so seems to be trending upwards.

Your 7 inches per century doesn't even make sense. Which century? Certainly not from 1800 to 1900. And from 1900 to 2000, it increased by 8 inches.

So, what is it about this graph that makes any sense and even remotely supports your conclusions?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 13, 2008 - 11:40pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Please stop blaming the messenger. If you have a problem with this graph, or anything I post with a reference, then take it up with them. This is not MY graph, this is the graph from that website. The point is the rate is not changing. To match the IPCC, to get that trend you would need, it would have to be 3 TIMES the current rate. As noted in the references I've posted before, the rate is not changing, it is fluctuating within normal ranges. If you have a reference that supports the notion that the rate has changed, please post it. If not, then the current hype that the changes in sea level is because of global warming must be wrong. Certainly the 19,000 scientists who added their names to this petition think AGW is wrong. Go contact them and show them they are misguided. http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tstreet on April 14, 2008 - 9:03am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So,now the new cop out is that we should go to your original source if you post stuff on this site that is mislabled and fails to support your position. No. If you are going to post here, you should defend your own data, not expect others to explain your data by going to your source.

You have chosen to be the messenger for those who think that global warming is a hoax. Then you post a graph that says the opposite of what you say about sea level rise and then ask me to not blame the messenger. If you don't want to be blamed, then quit posting info that says the opposite of what you purport to believe. As long as you keep posting stuff on this website that you use to support your position, then you should actually analyze your information to ensure that it says what you think it says.

In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference. So, thanks for providing a reference that shows that the rate of change is increasing.

But you are mixing two concepts. First, has the rate of sea level rise changed. It certainly appears that it has just from what you've posted here; never mind what other references are out there. Once we have determined that the rate has changed, the question becomes one of causation. According to your reference, the IPCC is not ready to state that they have enough data to confirm that the sea level rise is caused by global warming. As scientists, they are taking a conservative position and as, is typical of scientists, they are calling for further study, including more years of data. This is to be expected.

But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite.

Don't ask us to contact your so called scientists. Either defend your positions with valid data or quit posting. Next time someone else posts here in support of AGW, should you be expected to contact the IPCC?

Or maybe you should. We here in Boulder have probably the greatest concentration of climate scientists in the world. Start with NCAR. Take the tour and talk to the scientists who actually were part of the IPCC. Argue with them. They can take everything you throw at them. I have seen them in action. But don't tell them to go contact one of your references if you are having problems arguing with them.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 14, 2008 - 9:51am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"In fact, you have posted a reference that actually indicates that the rate is changing. I assume you stand by your reference."

Yes I do stand with the data. It's saw toothed, did you not see the other 2 that has a higher rate for a while, then drops? This is just another of those saw tooth changes. In fact, again I refer you to the IPCC 2007 report about this very point: "Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8] mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variability or an increase in the longer-term trend is unclear. "

But you are missing the whole point. To get to the IPCC's 20 inches in 100 years would require a rate THREE TIMES the observed rate. You claim the IPCC is conservative, so too do people like Gore who wants 20 feet of rise, that's THIRTY TIMES the current rate! Others have thrown out even higher rates over shorter distances of time.

"But one cannot conclude that AGW is not causing sea level rise just because scientists have not conclusively stated the opposite." Nor can you claim the opposite then.

Bottom line: Is the current rate BECAUSE of AGW? Yes or no. If Yes, why has the rate not changed to the value it should under the predictions? If not then all the current hype on the MSM about the rise because of AGW is flat wrong. Which is it?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on April 14, 2008 - 9:40am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Richard - is it possible that the change in trend around 1860 marks the onset of melt following The Little Ice Age?

I'm surprised this thread is still going - its been very interesting. If you reply can you send me an email flagging the reply - since I may forget to come back here.

Euan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 14, 2008 - 12:11pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

It certainly looks that way doesn't it. That was my first thought, but did not want to speculate.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Euan Mearns on April 14, 2008 - 12:46pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks Richard. Its too simple, isn't it?

I'm just back from X country skiing in Norway where on quiet evenings in the mountain cabins I read about the advance of Norwegian mountain glaciers during The Little Ice Age and about the sea ice apron that surrounded South Greenland - which no doubt was reflected by extended ice cap and glaciers on shore. I've also read about perma-frost inside excavated Greenland Norse settlements - pretty damned sure that permafrost wasn't there when the settlement was inhabited during the MWP.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
jrwakefield on April 12, 2008 - 11:58am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Are you refering to me or the Warm Mongers? Because those are the VERY arguments I use to support the skeptical position!! There is nothing in what you said I would disagree with at all. Thank you for supporting my position.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

218 comments on Cracking shale and why horizontal wells are slick

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version