Ocean News

Exactly.

I can understand people getting upset about thousands of tons of carbon emissions, at least until they get educated that is infinitesimal compared to the size of our atmosphere.
But how can anyone think, the relatively small percent of the worlds population that visits beaches to swim, are going to pollute the coral reefs with a dollop of sunscreen on their 1 inch square of nose?
It's not getting ridiculous, it's been that, it's getting more ridiculous.

 

Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports | PHYS.ORG

 

"Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study"
must have a string of high level degrees before his name.
All semblance of common sense must have been brainwashed away by decades of incarceration in an ivory tower..

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."...

Hair Dictionary - Schwarzkopf

www.schwarzkopf.international/ sk/ en/ home/ <... Proxy Highlight
"The average diameter of Asian hair is 0.08 to 0.12 mm. "

From my own experience, .27 mm is 1/64th of an inch. About two paint layers thick.

So does Jay Zwally really believe the IPCC can measure an annual searise equivalent to a couple of hair diameters? And he thinks it's something to worry about?

Does ANYBODY reading this think any scientist on the planet can, or should attempt, to measure a .27 mm sea level rise annual average?

I'd be embarrassed to publish sublime idiocy like this!

 

Your (embarrassing ) mistake is in not understanding the meaning of the two words 'attributed' and 'measured'. Over the last decade, using satellites, sea level has been 'measured' to be rising by an average of 3.2 mm/year. The source of that rise has been 'attributed' to the melting of the ice of Greenland, Antarctica, and mountains, as well as the thermal expansion of the oceans.

Sea Level | Columbia University

5.5.6 Total Budget of the Global Mean Sea Level Change | IPCC (2007)

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

 

Tiny Island Nation's Enormous New Ocean Reserve is Official | National Geographic

 

I know the difference between attributed and measured, very well.
MOST if not all the phenomenon observed, or frequently imagined, your side "attributes" to man caused. No measurements there at all.

And measurements usually have a range, a factor of error, a +/- X% after the figure. I imagine measuring something as immense as ocean levels averaged over a year, the potential error far exceeds 1/64th of an inch.

Worrying over a few parts per million annual human contribution to co2, worrying about dollops of sunscreen on a tiny % of a % of peoples noses, worrying about hair thickness sealevel rises, is called nitpicking, or fretting over minutia.

Why don't you schedule a world wide anthropogenic global warming conference/dodge ball game... in the middle of one of our transcontinental 6+ lane turnpikes?
Or the autobahn in Germany.
Playing in traffic might broaden your horizons as to what constitutes real danger.
And reduce the number of worrywarts.

 

I could imagine that any single satellite measurement might have an error in terms of +/- FEET! Not because of inaccuracy of the satellite measuring system itself, but because local weather effects can pile up or remove water, to say nothing of tides, etc. That's why these satellites take thousands of measurements each day, from thousands of locations all over the globe. So while any single measurement might have a huge error bar, collectively they become quite precise.

And for purposes of studying global warming, it may be less important to know the absolute height of sea level, and more important to know what the trend is. And currently, the trend is 3.2mm (1/8") per year increase. And even more alarming, the rate is increasing, from 0.6 mm/yr during the first part of the 1900s, to 1.4 mm/yr during the mid part of the 1900s, to the current 3.2 mm/yr. This is not a good sign!

FWIW, post #109 had quite a few +/- and % in it. Not that that will make any difference to you...

 

Persian Gulf may be too hot for human survival by 2090. Here’s what this means for your city. | Washington Post

Cyclone Chapala in the Arabian Sea Likely to Be Rare, Destructive Landfall in Yemen | Weather.com

 

Oh, I saw the margins of error in the graphs you posted. One was 1 mm error variance.
I also rea where they doctored the early data to make it fit better.

In addition, do you really believe that a large error in each single measurement somehow becomes more precise with repetitions?

That's akin to losing money on each an every sale, but turning a profit because of volume of sales.
Nonsense!

 

I know you don't credit this rising water theory, Yob, but it would be cheap insurance to always leave the plug in the bathtub when you leave the house, just in case !

 

Actually, I do believe that climate changes, slowly but continuously.
I don't think we have seen much warming in recent 15 years or so, a hiatus.
But I expect we will see another medieval warm period. All natural causes, not man made.
Assuming it does get warmer, then ice melts and sea level rise is likely.
Catastrophic rise with statue of liberty waist deep in water, nah.
What I object to, are clumsy attempts to manipulate us, with false or doctored data, bad mathematics and statistics, and fear mongering, so we will submit to even bigger more expensive, more intrusive government.

Errors accumulate. They don't self cancel. Wrong statistical analysis like that, and inventing and adjusting figures to suit their case.
The reason they do this stuff, is to make their argument appear stronger and more scientific.
And they think we are too ignorant to catch their tricks.
I point out, it actually proves they are intentionally dishonest, and have a nefarious agenda they intend to con us in to.

 

in reply IN.

I suggested you doomsters play in traffic as a vocabulary lesson.
So you understand "imminent danger" is a speeding truck coming at you, not half a degree centigrade temperature rise in a century, nor a fraction of an inch sea rise in a century, or possible this, an maybe that. Junk!

That is just fretfulness. Take an afternoon nap, and koolaid and cookies when you wake up, will put ya'll in a better mood.

 

The real information gets lost in the static.
AGW and the IPCC is a Marxist political plot to take over the world.
The IPCC isn't a group of scientists. They are corrupt Marxist politicians editorializing "science" to convince us the UN and the Marxists should have authority over every aspect of life and over every nation.
Progressives and socialists (Marxists both) in the USA work toward that agenda by preaching AGW everywhere they can.

 

UN should get the hell out and cease to exist. It is just a big old dictators' club.

 

A more apt example would be a company who offers life insurance. They base their premiums on when they think you will die. For any given person they could be years off, even decades off. But because they are dealing with a statistically large number of persons they know quite accurately when the average person will die.

The same with sea level measurements. Any single measurement is likely to be inaccurate, but collectively all the measurements taken together are quite accurate.

Apologies for posting this video twice:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4

A brief article explaining how sea level is determined:

Measuring sea level on a dynamic Earth | EarthSky