The_Global_Warmer Posted January 3, 2013 Share Posted January 3, 2013 With most reporting agencies updating and an expected revamp of sorts to come out from CU data. It's time to kick off Sea Level Rise talk. AVISO: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/yr The reference mean sea level since January 1993 (below) is calculated after removing the annual and semi-annual signals. A 2-month filter is applied to the blue points, while a 6-month filter is used on the red curve. By applying the postglacial rebound correction (-0.3 mm/year), the rise in mean sea level has thus been estimated as 3.16 mm/year (mean slope of the plotted data). Analysing the uncertainty of each altimetry correction made for calculating the GMSL, as well as a comparison with tide gauges gives an error in the GMSL slope of approximately 0.6 mm/year with a 90% confidence interval. (Credits CLS/Cnes/Legos) CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr Some what from La Nina to the weak Nino or back to neutral, also rain water making it's way back to the oceans after a couple of record years for land(rainfall), back to back years of record land ice loss, and weaker but still growing thermal inertia from OHC gain's have contributed to a step rise in GSLR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 With most reporting agencies updating and an expected revamp of sorts to come out from CU data. It's time to kick off Sea Level Rise talk. AVISO: 3.2 ± 0.6 mm/yr CSIRO: 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr Some what from La Nina to the weak Nino or back to neutral, also rain water making it's way back to the oceans after a couple of record years for land(rainfall), back to back years of record land ice loss, and weaker but still growing thermal inertia from OHC gain's have contributed to a step rise in GSLR It is always striking to me how much more cleanly SLR numbers illustrate the effects of CO2-induced global warming than composite global temperature estimates. This is in spite of local variations in SLR due to gravitational, ocean current and tidal differences. A lot of this is presumably due to obvious reasons (lower heat content, higher sensitivity to local measurement circumstances and greater dynamics and complexity of mixing currents etc. of the atmosphere vs oceans), but it is still very impressive to me, at least. The SLR rise curve is not as dramatic as recent sea ice loss or heat wave intensity changes but it communicates the consistency and long term seriousness of AGW better than anything else I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 It is always striking to me how much more cleanly SLR numbers illustrate the effects of CO2-induced global warming than composite global temperature estimates. This is in spite of local variations in SLR due to gravitational, ocean current and tidal differences. A lot of this is presumably due to obvious reasons (lower heat content, higher sensitivity to local measurement circumstances and greater dynamics and complexity of mixing currents etc. of the atmosphere vs oceans), but it is still very impressive to me, at least. The SLR rise curve is not as dramatic as recent sea ice loss or heat wave intensity changes but it communicates the consistency and long term seriousness of AGW better than anything else I know. How does this prove that CO2 is causing this? It is a good measure of rising global temperatures and that is it. Anytime the earth warms or cools, sea levels rise and fall. You make a leap of faith that the warming temperatures are completely due to rises in CO2. You can't make this assumption from this dataset. There are other factors too. That is my big problem with this whole AGW theory. There are other factors that we don't understand, natural climatic variations and even stochastic variations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dabize Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 How does this prove that CO2 is causing this? It is a good measure of rising global temperatures and that is it. Anytime the earth warms or cools, sea levels rise and fall. You make a leap of faith that the warming temperatures are completely due to rises in CO2. You can't make this assumption from this dataset. There are other factors too. That is my big problem with this whole AGW theory. There are other factors that we don't understand, natural climatic variations and even stochastic variations. Making that connection is no more difficult for me than accepting that oxygen is required for chemiosmosis in human cells, or that there is such a thing as a P orbital. The correlation between temperature rise, sea level rise and the Keeling Curve showing atmospheric CO2 rise, combined with the known "greenhouse" properties of CO2 and the paleo record linking these parameters makes it unreasonable for scientifically informed people to doubt the relationship without cause. The fact that other factors may modulate this as well is minor - for a host of well known reasons. Constantly raising points such as this is obfuscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Making that connection is no more difficult for me than accepting that oxygen is required for chemiosmosis in human cells, or that there is such a thing as a P orbital. The correlation between temperature rise, sea level rise and the Keeling Curve showing atmospheric CO2 rise, combined with the known "greenhouse" properties of CO2 and the paleo record linking these parameters makes it unreasonable for scientifically informed people to doubt the relationship without cause. The fact that other factors may modulate this as well is minor - for a host of well known reasons. Constantly raising points such as this is obfuscation. You are equating our complex atmospheric climate system with many unknowns with simple well known science. The atmosphere is not this simple. The paleo record actually shows CO2 lagging the temperatures. The reasons why CO2 somehow dominate the temperatures in these records are tenuous at best. You are the one not scientifically informed. The scientifically informed... study and read as much info as possible and think for themselves,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Making that connection is no more difficult for me than accepting that oxygen is required for chemiosmosis in human cells, or that there is such a thing as a P orbital. The correlation between temperature rise, sea level rise and the Keeling Curve showing atmospheric CO2 rise, combined with the known "greenhouse" properties of CO2 and the paleo record linking these parameters makes it unreasonable for scientifically informed people to doubt the relationship without cause. The fact that other factors may modulate this as well is minor - for a host of well known reasons. Constantly raising points such as this is obfuscation. You are equating our complex atmospheric climate system with many unknowns with simple well known science. The atmosphere is not this simple. The paleo record actually shows CO2 lagging the temperatures. The reasons why CO2 somehow dominate the temperatures in these records are tenuous at best. You are the one not scientifically informed. The scientifically informed... study and read as much info as possible and think for themselves,,,, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 We have seen three years in a row with roughly 1 trillion tonnes of ice. More than likely natural variations do not cause that kind insane ice loss. Exp considering the empirical evidence of GHG forciing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 You are equating our complex atmospheric climate system with many unknowns with simple well known science. The atmosphere is not this simple. The paleo record actually shows CO2 lagging the temperatures. The reasons why CO2 somehow dominate the temperatures in these records are tenuous at best. You are the one not scientifically informed. The scientifically informed... study and read as much info as possible and think for themselves,,,, The reasons are not tenuous, as has been explained many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 The reasons are not tenuous, as has been explained many times. I have read the papers over and over on the explanation that somehow CO2 takes over driving the temperature after weak orbital forcing kicks off the sequence and something stronger than CO2's influence begins to drop the temperature (probably albedo)..THEN...CO2 become the driver. I just don't see it. the logic breaks down in my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I have read the papers over and over on the explanation that somehow CO2 takes over driving the temperature after weak orbital forcing kicks off the sequence and something stronger than CO2's influence begins to drop the temperature (probably albedo)..THEN...CO2 become the driver. I just don't see it. the logic breaks down in my mind. It doesn't become the driver. It becomes one of several feedbacks, and not even the strongest. The strongest would be the ice albedo feedback, followed by CO2 and H2O. As has been explained to you several times. I'm not sure which papers you read, but you must not have read them very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 It doesn't become the driver. It becomes one of several feedbacks, and not even the strongest. The strongest would be the ice albedo feedback, followed by CO2 and H2O. As has been explained to you several times. I'm not sure which papers you read, but you must not have read them very well. No. Not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 We have seen three years in a row with roughly 1 trillion tonnes of ice. More than likely natural variations do not cause that kind insane ice loss. Exp considering the empirical evidence of GHG forciing How do you know that? come on. did you ever hear of the ice ages? what about the little ice age and the warming after that? How do you know we didn't have ice loss at that magnitude? we have roughly 30 years of reliable sea ice data and you can be so certain of this. The late 70s were a cool period and that is when the reliable record began. The variations might be normal. I am skeptical of the sea ice data before the satellite era. We are witnessing the dynamics of the climate system. There have been changes like this before and there will be changes again the other way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 No. Not true. I've provided you with several papers demonstrating the fact that the ice albedo feedback is the strongest feedback to Milankovich cycles, at about 3.5W/m2. The CO2 feedback is about 2.5W/m2, and H2O is probably somewhat weaker than that, perhaps 2W/m2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 I am skeptical of the sea ice data before the satellite era. You mean you deny it. Funny how all data which contradicts your pre-determined view is simply vanished away without real understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 How do you know that? come on. did you ever hear of the ice ages? what about the little ice age and the warming after that? How do you know we didn't have ice loss at that magnitude? we have roughly 30 years of reliable sea ice data and you can be so certain of this. The late 70s were a cool period and that is when the reliable record began. The variations might be normal. I am skeptical of the sea ice data before the satellite era. We are witnessing the dynamics of the climate system. There have been changes like this before and there will be changes again the other way. Look man. I know I didn't specify "Land Ice". But When someone speaks about 1 trillion tonnes of ice being lost on this planet in one year in a Sea Level Thread it's probably more to do with Land Ice. As far as the Sea Ice. You are only skeptical because your trying to uphold a false reality. If you actually hold the data collected in Walsh Chapman as skeptical or the data since the original publication as skeptical then it's clear you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to Arctic Sea Ice and your just skimming over some web site, repeating denier talking points or just doing it on your own. We have data back to the late 1800s on a confidence interval of 95% within 1 million km2 per season for sea ice. It's reality, nothing to be skeptical of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Look man. I know I didn't specify "Land Ice". But When someone speaks about 1 trillion tonnes of ice being lost on this planet in one year in a Sea Level Thread it's probably more to do with Land Ice. As far as the Sea Ice. You are only skeptical because your trying to uphold a false reality. If you actually hold the data collected in Walsh Chapman as skeptical or the data since the original publication as skeptical then it's clear you have no idea what your talking about when it comes to Arctic Sea Ice and your just skimming over some web site, repeating denier talking points or just doing it on your own. We have data back to the late 1800s on a confidence interval of 95% within 1 million km2 per season for sea ice. It's reality, nothing to be skeptical of. melting sea ice does not raise sea levels. the satellite era and the pre satellite era are apples to oranges comparison. Yes they may have had an idea on the sea ice extent but we can't no for sure. the 95% confidence level...Mann's hockey stick was at that wasn't it? we know that went down in flames. Well for most of the mainstream climate scientists.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 melting sea ice does not raise sea levels. the satellite era and the pre satellite era are apples to oranges comparison. Yes they may have had an idea on the sea ice extent but we can't no for sure. the 95% confidence level...Mann's hockey stick was at that wasn't it? we know that went down in flames. Well for most of the mainstream climate scientists.... No we don't know that. I will not respond to your strawman arguments any longer, and when it comes to science, when you say people should think for themselves you sound like an ideological fool. CO2 has not driven the ice age cycles and no one claims it has. Sea levels are rising because of land based ice melt and an expansion of the water column due to warming, warming which other areas of science demonstrate is caused by an enhansement to the greenhouse effect. Now continue on with your obfuscation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 No we don't know that. I will not respond to your strawman arguments any longer, and when it comes to science, when you say people should think for themselves you sound like an ideological fool. CO2 has not driven the ice age cycles and no one claims it has. Sea levels are rising because of land based ice melt and an expansion of the water column due to warming, warming which other areas of science demonstrate is caused by an enhansement to the greenhouse effect. Now continue on with your obfuscation. If CO2 has not driven the ice ages cycles, then it passively follows the temperature with some small effects as many obviously can see when looking at the dat. That was one of my original points on some other thread. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Global_Warmer Posted January 6, 2013 Author Share Posted January 6, 2013 melting sea ice does not raise sea levels. the satellite era and the pre satellite era are apples to oranges comparison. Yes they may have had an idea on the sea ice extent but we can't no for sure. the 95% confidence level...Mann's hockey stick was at that wasn't it? we know that went down in flames. Well for most of the mainstream climate scientists.... What the ________ are you talking about? We have lost around 1 trillion tonnes of land ice the last three years. Why do you keep bringing up Sea Ice? Let alone the constant lies your spewing about it? WHAT DOES MANN'S HOCKEY STICK HAVE TO DO WITH WALSH AND CHAPMAN? AND THE OTHER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF PIECES OF DATA PERTAINING TO ARCTIC SEA ICE AND LAND ICE IN GENERAL SINCE THE LATE 1800S? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 What the ________ are you talking about? We have lost around 1 trillion tonnes of land ice the last three years. Why do you keep bringing up Sea Ice? Let alone the constant lies your spewing about it? WHAT DOES MANN'S HOCKEY STICK HAVE TO DO WITH WALSH AND CHAPMAN? AND THE OTHER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT MILLIONS OF PIECES OF DATA PERTAINING TO ARCTIC SEA ICE AND LAND ICE IN GENERAL SINCE THE LATE 1800S? You didn't mention land ice in your initial post. Plus where did you get that figure from? How do you know that 1 trillion tons of land ice melting in three years is that unusual in the last 150 years? Is there a graph of land ice losses? That would be interesting to see. We might just be observing what the Earth looks like when it gets warmer. Ice melts. It has melted before. why is this exceptional? There is no context to which to compare it to. Ok. The Mann Hockey stick was not needed in my argument. Mea culpa. Why do you folks get so emotional about this stuff? I often have disagreements with colleagues in meteorology about an evolving weather system and we agree to disagree and I respect their opinions even if I don't agree. Sometimes I am right, sometimes I am wrong too. This is how science works. We challenge each other without name calling or getting angry. This is how we all learn and get better at what we do. It happens all the time among meteorologists. maybe that is why we tend to be more skeptical of any kind of prediction... Well I do respect the opinions of people on this forum. I do. I may not agree but I respect your opinions. I just get called names, talked down to for disagreeing etc. That sometimes gets me going which I should not do and I then throw an insult out or two of my own. I apologize for this. Just relax people. "Chill". Why can't this be a forum of debate? If one does not believe in the IPCC studies almost completely then they get crushed on this forum. Then why not just upload the whole AR4 and draft AR5 and end the forum. OR..If you don't agree...then get your post erased, warning points and possible removed from american weather or your ability to post on this forum is revoked. that will work too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skierinvermont Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 If CO2 has not driven the ice ages cycles, then it passively follows the temperature with some small effects as many obviously can see when looking at the dat. That was one of my original points on some other thread. Thanks. So CO2 either drives the ice age cycles or "passively follows temperature with some small effects." Talk about a false dichotomy! How about somewhere in between - a significant feedback that accounts for about 1/3 of the temperature change during glacial cycles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 why should anyone in this forum have to continually debate junk science that has been repeatedly debunked? <sorry for the weird quote; I can't get the board to quote properly> My point exactly. Anything that goes against what many of you think is "junk" science. Come on. Really? None of this stuff is anywhere near settled or has been "debunked". The atmosphere is not as simple as you people think. I am SURE of this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 why should anyone in this forum have to continually debate junk science that has been repeatedly debunked? <sorry for the weird quote; I can't get the board to quote properly> My point exactly. Anything that goes against what many of you think is "junk" science. Come on. Really? None of this stuff is anywhere near settled or has been "debunked". The atmosphere is not as simple as you people think. I am SURE of this. The skeptic/deniers have no science. All they try to do is confuse the public perception of what the actual science reports. You are good at it. Congrats! In the mean time, the seas continue to rise and likely will continue well beyond the foot and one half expected during this century alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blizzard1024 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 The skeptic/deniers have no science. All they try to do is confuse the public perception of what the actual science reports. You are good at it. Congrats! In the mean time, the seas continue to rise and likely will continue well beyond the foot and one half expected during this century alone. You guys just keep going off. None of what you say here is true. You have no answers, just insults. nice. Fortunately the sea level rise is slow enough for man to adapt. Plus, mankind will have to find ways to get away from the coasts in the future. It just makes sense. There will be more hurricanes and winter storms that cause massive waves, wind and flooding again. More people live by the sea than ever. This is not good. I do agree with you on this in general. Ok I am done on this specific thread. I am tired of this. I am sure you all will be happy now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PottercountyWXobserver Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 The Deniers are funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 For those who get easily Butthurt you may wanna avoid reading further. After seeing some of the comments in this thread by the usual suspects i really don't care who gets butthurt. This needs to be said. Oh and this is directed at the morons who think they have it all figured out and wanna be insulting to those who disagree. For the rest who act NORMAL and not like a douche feel free to ignore as it is not directed at you. To begin.. I'll take the word of a degreed met who knows about how the climate/weather works ( what drives the weather ) over anyone else in here. WTF is wrong with you people? You all are what is wrong with this forum. You all are being condescending/insulting. For ANY OF YOU to say/suggest to someone who has a degree in this field that you know more then him about the subject matter is insulting to say the least. You all should STFU. Oh and just because someone may publish stuff for these soo called experts does not make them a expert in the field either so save it. You know who you are. Copying and pasting or linking to other peoples work does not make anyone a expert as far as that goes. So for any of you to call someones thoughts etc JUNK science is laughable at best and to do it to someone with a degree in meteorology is beyond words. When you get the degree in this field publish your own work then you can make such outlandish comments. Till then you need to stfu! Oh and lol at the junk science bs. Love how anytime anything/anyone disagrees with the GW agenda ( causes ) it is called junk science. Talk about the LOLZ!!! OMG they are EXPERTS they are NEVER wrong and have it all figured out HOW DARE YOU disagree!!!! Now lets cut to the bs. Yeah they are experts that fall in the same group think as you all do who hate to be proven WRONG. ANYTHING that goes against that/them is junk. Please.. Just because you/they may call it that doesn't make it so. All that does is encourage others to laugh at you/them. You all are a disgrace to science. So go on and pat each other on the backs and line up in attack mode as you all constantly do while i sit here and laugh at you. Again when you get the degree and publish your own work get back to me. And no i am not saying ( nor suggesting ) we have not had any warming. I know better. Post has nothing to do with that anyways. Oh and save the diatribe for someone else. I don't care what any of you whackos think. And yeah when you cross the line as a few have in this thread you look like a whackO. When SOME of you decide to ever come back to reality and wanna have a honest debate all of this perhaps then i may care. You wanna report me feel free to because you all went way over the line with blizz. Most come to this forum to read their thoughts not you idiots who contribute nothing but drama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastFromTheEast Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 LOL^ FFS A simple Met Degree does NOT = Expert in climate science... SMH.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ellinwood Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'd trust wxtrix over blizzard1024 in a heartbeat. Red tags are meaningless. While I may not fully agree with all of trix's thoughts on climate change, I would trust her thoughts more so than most others on here due to her more extensive knowledge and experience with the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonger Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I'd trust wxtrix over blizzard1024 in a heartbeat. Red tags are meaningless. While I may not fully agree with all of trix's thoughts on climate change, I would trust her thoughts more so than most others on here due to her more extensive knowledge and experience with the subject. Has she ever posted her qualifications? I thought she simply works with publishing and chastises people who don't use her channels to get information out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeatherRusty Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 I will reiterate what trix stated above and add that opinion based on non-peer-reviewed materal is an unsubtantiated opinion. It's junk in the context of a scientific discussion. That is not to say the opinion is wrong, just that it has little or no scientific backing, and just because a credentialed individual says it does not change that fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.