What Do We Think About Climate Change

[bntii]

"Long-term mean sea level change is a variable of considerable interest in the studies of global climate change. The measurement of long-term changes in global mean sea level can provide an important corroboration of predictions by climate models of global warming. Long term sea level variations are primarily determined with two different methods. Over the last century, global sea level change has typically been estimated from tide gauge measurements by long-term averaging. Alternatively, satellite altimeter measurements can be combined with precisely known spacecraft orbits to provide an improved measurement of global sea level change.
Since August 1992 the satellite altimeters have been measuring sea level on a global basis with unprecedented accuracy. The TOPEX/POSEIDON (T/P) satellite mission provided observations of sea level change from 1992 until 2005. Mean sea levelJason-1, launched in late 2001 as the successor to T/P, continues this record by providing an estimate of global mean sea level every 10 days with an uncertainty of 3-4 mm. The latest mean sea level time series and maps of regional sea level change can be found on this site. Concurrent tide gauge calibrations are used to estimate altimeter drift. Sea level measurements for specific locations can be obtained from our Interactive Wizard. Details on how these results are computed can be found in the documentation and the bibliography. Please contact us for further information."


http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_1

Jason-2 is now online and continuing the record:

"The new mission extends a 16-year continuous record of global sea level measurements begun in 1992 by the NASA/Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) Topex/Poseidon mission and continued by the two agencies on Jason 1, launched in 2001. Data from Topex/Poseidon and Jason 1 show that mean sea level has been rising by about three millimeters (.12 inches) a year since 1993."
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ostm/main/index.html

"At a press briefing today, Laury Miller, chief of NOAA’s Laboratory for Satellite Altimetry, said NOAA will use data from the Jason-2/Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM) to extend a 15-year record from two earlier altimeter missions that currently show sea level is rising at a rate of 3.2 mm/year — nearly twice as fast as the previous 100 years. “This rate, if it continues unchanged over the coming decades, will have a large impact on coastal regions, in terms of erosion and flooding,” said Miller."

Just for fun we should all switch sides for about a week. How would you fair singing the tune in a different key Guillermo & Jimbo?

[Guillermo]

Of course this is of no relevance at global level, but today I see from my window, for the first time since we live here, snow in the mountains around Pontevedra from, which are only a few hundreds of metres high.

Cheers.

[bntii]

----I am switching teams-----

Looks like another doomsday prediction bites the dust:

SEA LEVEL CHANGES: OBSERVATIONS VERSUS MODELS
MÖRNER, Nils-Axel, Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm Univ, Stockholm S-10691 Sweden, morner@pog.su.se.

"Sea level rose for glacial eustatic reasons up to about 5000 BP. After that, global sea level has been dominated by the redistribution of ocean water masses (and by that ocean-stored heat). This redistribution of water masses is driven by the interchange of angular momentum between the solid earth and the hydrosphere (in feedback coupling) primarily expressed as changes in the oceanic surface current systems. In view of this, there has been very hard to define any global eustatic signal. This is where and why a dialectic between models and observations enter the sea level debate. According to the glacial loading models, global sea level is now rising by 2.4 mm/year or 1.8 mm/year. The IPCC models have hypothesised of a very rapid rise in the near future, ranging for original wild estimates of 1-3 m in a century to the presently advocated value of 47 +37 mm in a century. The INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (www.pog.su.se/sea) hosts the true world specialists on sea level research. This commission has presented an observationally based analysis of the present sea level changes and the changes to be expected in the next century. Both the glacial loading models and the ICPP scenarios are strongly contradicted by observational data for the last 100-150 years that cannot have exceeded a mean rate of 1.0-1.1 mm/year. In the last 300 years, sea level has been oscillation close to the present with peak rates in the period 1890-1930. Sea level fell between 1930 and 1950. The late 20th century lacks any sign of acceleration. Satellite altimetry indicates virtually no changes in the last decade. Therefore, observationally based predictions of future sea level in the year 2100 will give a value of +10 +10 cm (or +5 +15 cm), by this discarding model out-puts by IPCC as well as global loading models. In conclusions, there are firm observationally based reasons to free the world from the condemnation to become extensively flooded in the 21st century AD."
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/inqu/final...ract_54461.htm

[Guillermo]

Yes, Thomas, but then you'll be attacked discrediting Mörner.
The important thing is present sea level rises are ridiculous when considered in longer time scales and it has been not at all proved there is any relation with man made CO2 emissions. Just plain GW alarmism once again.

(find down here another graph on sea level changes during from 18000 BC to 2000 AD in cm/century, derived from a graph by Lambeck cited in IPCC's Climate Change 2001. What has that to do with CO2 at all....? )


Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by bntii

Just for fun we should all switch sides for about a week. How would you fair singing the tune in a different key Guillermo & Jimbo?

We may do that, but I don't find it is mentally challenging and thinking provoking to be on the AGW side. That's the easy side of debate.

But, just to be for a moment on the 'dark side'.....
"Russian weather official says global warming to continue"
http://en.rian.ru/science/20081201/118633980.html

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Knock, Knock: Where is the Evidence for Dangerous Human-Caused Global Warming?
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...knockknock.pdf

From there:

"There is no Theory of Climate, in the sense that there is a Theory of Gravitation or Relativity. Therefore no computer model, let alone the unvalidated General Circulation Models (GCMs) that are employed, for example, by the IPCC, can accurately predict future global or regional climate. Furthermore, science does not operate by consensus. To assert – as many do – that IPCC advice on climate change represents a consensus scientific view that should necessarily be acted upon is a statement about sociology and politics, not about science."
(bolded is mine)

The Deniers – the world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution and fraud.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles...iersreview.pdf

From there:
"Lawrence Solomon, the Canadian environmentalist and anti-nuclear campaigner, sought to find well-regarded scientists who disagreed with the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria promoted by Al Gore and the IPCC. The result was astonishing in that for all of the headline issues of the AGW hypothesis, he found dissenting scientists who were consistently the most accomplished and eminent people in their respective fields of expertise. In fact, the more he searched, the more there seemed to be, complete with data and analysis to support their positions. Chillingly, several of them, despite their substantial expertise and reputations, declined on-record interviews for fear of losing their funding and, in some cases, their jobs."
(bolded is mine)

Cheers.

[Guillermo]

Indeed much more mind challenging and exciting to be on "the dark cool side".....!

Orbital motion - Jovian planets --> Spin-orbit Coupling --> Solar rotation --> The level of solar activity
Orbital motion - Jovian planets --> External phenomenon --> Earth’s Rotation --> PDO --> Earth’s mean temp.

Such a model might explain why small changes in the energy output on the Sun appear to produce mysteriously amplified effects upon the World’s mean temperature!

Which came first...the chicken or the egg...?

Cheers

[Jimbo1490]

Thomas,

It's interesting that sea level fell during the period of 1930-1950, which was after a warming period from 1910-1930's. I had heard years ago a competing theory of sea level change that posited that sea levels will actually fall in a warming event because a warmer sea will evaporate more water, which will in turn precipitate on the antarctic and Greenland ice mass, depriving the sea of that liquid water. This makes sense when you consider that in past extremely warm periods (like the Holocene), the great land-bound ice masses (Greenland and Antarctica) did not melt but actually grew.

Remember that the melting of the north polar ice cap has no effect on sea levels as that ice is already floating in water. It's the land-bound ice that matters for sea level change.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

Small excerpts from "An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming" By Nigel Lawson:



1) "The 21st century standstill [ 8 years of temperature decline], which has occurred at a time when global CO2 emissions have been rising faster than ever, is something that the conventional wisdom, and the computer models on which it relies, completely failed to predict." (page 6)

2) "They [The Hadley Centre] now forecast that, after an unpredicted, almost decade-long lull global warming will resume in 2009 or thereabouts". ( page 7)

3) "For the United States, only three of the last twelve years emerge as among the warmest since records began; and the warmest year of all was 1934." (page 9)

4) "two thirds of the Green house effect.... is water vapor....Rather a long way behind is carbon dioxide the second most important greenhouse gas." (Page 10)

5) "....the science of clouds, which is clearly critical (not the least because water vapor [the major component], as we have seen, is far and away the most important contributor to greenhouse gases is one of the least understood aspects of climate science." (page 12)

6) ...the mediaeval warm period, a benign time when temperatures were probably at least as high, if not higher than they are today ....during the Roman period, it was probably even warmer....vineyards existed as far north as Northeastern England." [where they do not exist today] (page 16)

7) "........the Greenland ice sheet appears to be melting, while at its centre, the ice is thickening. ...all to easy for Al Gore to cherry-pick local phenomena which best illustrate their [his] predetermined alarmist global narrative". ( page 19)

8) " .....making a total increase of some 1.3 F [a prediction that is hardly alarming] over the [entire] 20th century as a whole. (page 10).

9) "...is it really plausible that there is an ideal average world temperature, which by some small departures in either direction would spell disaster? The average annual temperature is...41 degrees F in Helsinki... in Singapore.... 81 degrees F. Man can successfully live with that [ a 40 degree F difference]."

10) ".....polar bears, which have been around for millennia, during which there is ample evidence that polar temperatures have varied considerably" (page 30).

11) "Sea levels have, in fact been rising very gradually for as long as records exist, and there is little sign of any acceleration so far. .....may have been less in second half of 20th century than first." (page 31)

12) "to assess the cost of climate change [assuming climate change] in the absence of adaptation is about as sensible as assessing the risk of catching pneumonia in London on the assumption that we all go out and about in the cold and the rain in our bathing costumes. Yet to a considerable extent that is just what the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change) does." (page 39)

13) "The Dutch managed [sea level rise] even with the technology of the 16th century."( page 42)

14) Seven out of 10 [of the worst hurricanes] occurred before 1975." (Page 50)

15) "...the overwhelming land-borne mass of polar ice [that could effect sea levels] ..is over Antarctica, not Greenland in the North....where the ice sheet is growing" (page 51).

16) "the Gulf Stream [ the ocean conveyer of warm water that Al Gore says may freeze England if interrupted by warming]...is largely a surface current, and thus a wind driven phenomena..[not related to warming]." (page 52)

17) "China's....annual increase [in emission will] .... far exceed the UK's total annual emissions." [China will] increase its power-generating capacity each year by roughly the equivalent of Britain's total capacity." (page 55)

18) "On the one hand you [the world] increase the production in China, and on the other you criticize China on the emission reduction issue, so it is unfair."......"targets should be in terms not of greenhouse gas production but in terms of gas consumption." (page 56)

19) "It was calculated at the time that if every signatory ratified Kyoto and subsequently met its emission target, [none of the signatories actually did meet their targets] the world's temperature by 2100 would be 0.1C/0.2F less than would otherwise be the case - a trivial amount". ( Page 59)

20) "According to the Hadley Center, only by a reduction of about 70% [nearly impossible] in [global] carbon dioxide emissions would we be able to stabilize its concentration in the atmosphere," ( page 65)

All these assertions are footnoted with citations of published scientific papers.

Jimbo

[CDK]

Nobody will dispute the fact that the amount of matter on our planet is a
constant. The molecular structure on the other hand has changed
considerably and continues to do so.

There will surely have been an era, millions of years ago, when there was
little or no free oxygen in the atmosphere, only oxidized carbon and
methane, a most favorable condition for the proliferation of plant life.
Plants stripped the O2 from CO2 because they only needed the Carbon and
gave us the unstable 80/20 mixture of nitrogen and oxygen we now breath
every day.

It seems logical to me, that if we oxidize all fossil fuels into CO2 and
cut down major forests because we need the wood (or even worse, burn it),
the atmosphere returns to the state it was in long ago when there was
only plant life.

The sea level predictions, long term weather changes and occurance of
extreme weather conditions are very complex problems which right now
perhaps cannot be exactly calculated or proven, opening that field to
believers, non-believers, doomsday-prophets, reckless optimists, you name
it.
But without a breathable atmosphere, who cares about global warming?

I live just a few paces from the sea in a bay of the Adriatic sea, where
the Italians built a massive pier and large stone blocks with bollards
for their cargo ships around 1920. For my boat, about 10 years ago, I
constructed a contraption from stainless steel that lifts my boat above
the water to the same height as the pier.
A few nights ago the sea level rose higher than ever before, sweeping the
boat from the holding pads, flooding the pier that everybody believed to
be absolutely safe, the access roads and causing considerable damage in
all harbors on the island.

Freaky weather conditions that occur once every so-many years?
Sure, but the previous record breaking flood was just 4 months ago!

[bntii]

Perhaps a field trip is in order?

The geology of Eleuthera island, Bahamas: a Rosetta stone of quaternary stratigraphy and sea-level history

Paul J. Heartya, *

Abstract

A 5-km stretch of coastline in north Eleuthera reveals a long and detailed stratigraphy that includes all known surficial limestone units in the Bahamas, and supplements the record with several previously unrecognized ones. Eight paleosol-bounded limestone para-sequences comprise at least six interglacial periods. The lithostratigraphy demonstrates cyclicity at several frequencies (105, 104 (20-40 ka), and 103 years) and displays a variety of distal to proximal shoreline facies indicative of shifting depocenters associated with changing sea-levels. Stratigraphy, petrology, pedology and whole-rock aminostratigraphy are used to correlate units and subunits among the 12 described sections. Amino acid ratios are also converted to absolute age estimates which support the lithostratigraphy. The parasequences are correlated with marine Oxygen Isotope Stages 1 to 13 or older. Evidence of middle Pleistocene highstands are abundant in the Eleutheran stratigraphy, including paleo-sea-levels of decreasing age at + 2 m, + 7 m, + 20 m associated with Stages 11 and/or 9, and two near-present highstands during Stage 7. A complex sea-level history is associated with Substage 5e, while Substage 5a is represented by near shore aggradation of coastal dune complexes in Eleuthera and throughout the Bahamas. Concordance of sea-level deposits between Bermuda and the Bahamas reinforce their tectonic stability, while the abundance of highstand evidence during the middle Pleistocene contradicts suggestions that platform subsidence has obscured all evidence of these events below present sea-level.

The high-resolution late Quaternary stratigraphy of Eleuthera is unrivaled among geologic records from stable carbonate coastlines, and thereby offers a ‘Rosetta Stone’ for interpretation of the Quaternary evolution of the Bahamas and sea-level history over the past 500 ka.


I will bring the beer and some decent rum.

[Boston]

I would point out again that in any data set there are bits of anomalous data
science using the empirical method considers a data stream thus evening out posible errors in data collection and collation
the possibility of some percentage of conflicting data in any study is high
however it is the preponderance of evidence that science is looking for
citing individual works lying outside the vast data stream amassed from multiple sources is simply not science
the hypocrisy of the detracting view is readily apparent in the use of predominantly industry sources along with uncorroborated or properly peer reviewed work

I'd like to mention a Professor Robert Neel Proctor
He coined the term "agnotology" to describe the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data

just got a chance to read through





seems clear enough
fossil shore lines can be very misleading due to tectonic activity kids
actual measurements based on multiple sources show a rise greater than that predicted

glaciers are dramatically retreating across the board


the amount of sea ice is shrinking
sooooooo
were is it going if not the oceans

the NSIDC states clearly

Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).

and not just one or two but thousands of scientists have concluded as stated in the following excerpt that

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".

have a great day
B

by having to rely on industry publications and research the lagging arguments of warming skeptics is clear for all to see
would you ask the tobacco industry if it was detrimental to your health to smoke
the following Exxon graph was provided as some kind of evidence having precedence over the National Snow and Ice Data Center graphs I have presented
you gotta be kidding me

[Boston]

Im curious
why is it you guys were adamant about feed back loops having been disproven just a few months ago
and yet now you folks are arguing for the existence of negative feed back loops
what happened
are we unable to admit we are wrong about something

the key to learning is to admit we have made an error

regards
B

[Jimbo1490]

Boston
A feedback 'loop' is an unmitigated positive feedback that continues to increase the systemic response even after the original stimulus is diminished or removed. I've always said that CO2 DOES NOT participate in a feedback LOOP with water vapor, but instead that there are both positive and negative feedbacks for CO2, and that the negative feedbacks must be presumed to dominate the system, as it has yet to go 'off the rails'.

The admission of the existence of feedbacks does not constitute the admission of the existence of feedback LOOPS. I said this months earlier knowing that most current research was leaning that way. CO2 DOES NOT participate in a feedback LOOP. No way, no how. If it did, the climate would have gone off equilibrium LONG ago, NEVER to return.

Read my old posts #815, 1098, 1106, 1231 and 1250, as well as Gulliermo's post #859. My review of these posts revealed no inconsistency whatsoever; my position has not changed at all.


Review:

There are feedbacks, both positive and negative, but there is no CO2 feedback LOOP, which is caused by a positive feedback dominated system; the earth's climate is a system dominated by NEGATIVE feedbacks.

If you do not understand the difference between a feedback and a feedback LOOP, then maybe you are not quite the brilliant scholar that you imagine yourself to be



Jimbo

[Boston]

you are waffling again
its really obvious you are arguing semantics rather than just
admit you are wrong

the truth will out friends
the truth will out

What is a "Feedback Loop"?
Scientists: '
Feedback Loops' Are the Single-Biggest Threat to Civilization From Global Warming
POINT BARROW, Alaska, Feb. 18, 2006

Global warming
Scientists say the Arctic is melting -- and fear it could help send Earth into a global warming tailspin.

Scientists say the warm weather adds to global warming because of "feedback loops."

In a feedback loop, the rising temperature on the Earth changes the environment in ways that then create even more heat. Scientists consider feedback loops the single-biggest threat to civilization from global warming.

Past a certain point -- the tipping point, they say -- there may be no stopping the changes.

Scientists working in the Arctic report that feedback loops are already under way. As the frozen sea surface of the Arctic Ocean melts back, there's less white to reflect the sun's heat back into space -- and more dark, open water to absorb that heat, which then melts the floating sea ice even faster. More than a third of summer sea ice disappeared in the past 30 years.

In the ground next to the ocean, scientists say, warming has also awakened another enormous danger -- billions of tons of carbon locked up for eons by what was once frozen ground.

"I feel very uncomfortable about it," says Walter Oechel, a scientist studying the problem. "I mean, it's not the way the Arctic should be."

Oechel discovered that as global warming thaws and dries out the vast tundra, old decayed vegetation releases carbon dioxide. That's the same greenhouse gas that comes from car and plane exhausts, and power-plant chimneys -- and the tundra releasing carbon dioxide warms the atmosphere even more.

face it J
you got caught in a loop of your own

might as well just admit it
might make you feel better

course if you cant admit that 97% agreement is a consensus then I guess you are going to have trouble admitting feedback loops
or Global Warming

if you need more I can cite countless scientists as to the existence of feedback loops

According to Tessa Hill, a geologist at the University of California, Davis, more methane is released into the atmosphere from ocean deposits during periods of warming than previously thought.

This expelled methane increases temperatures and releases more methane, creating a positive feedback loop.

The research appears tomorrow in the early online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

.

looks like the create your own definitions plan didnt work for you
again

I particularly liked this Jimism

A loop such as the AGW alarmists describe would lead to an unstable equilibrium

now I have to ask
does anyone know what a "unstable equilibrium" is other than an oxymoron

might try looking at the science instead of just the industry spin lest you keep making this easy for me

always a pleasure
B