An interesting article on sea levels rising..

[IanC]

I'm sure you have seen the Alaskan graph showing glacier retreat, much of it in the 19th century. European glaciers have also retreated from LIA highs.

I will let you investigate satellite altimetry and gravity effects on your own. You can believe or not, I don't care.

Tide gauge data is out there to explore. Many areas are rebounding or subsiding but the stable areas show mild SLR rise. Again, you can believe or not, I don't care.

You can reject all data from all sources if you want. And replace them with your feelings. I simply don't care.

 

[SSDD]

Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.

Back radiation would be a fine magical occurrence to start with. Also you seem to be dodging my repeated question so I will ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

What predictive failure of mine are you referencing? I cannot argue against some phantom thought rattling around in your head.

You are getting to be as good a dancer as crick...you must be so proud....Are you going to deny that predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis have failed to come to pass....like the tropospheric hot spot for instance? There are plenty of others that have been made in the past and yet, they never happened. So again..how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the work begins for a more viable hypothesis?

 

[LaDexter]

on the whole I am satisfied that there has been an increase during the last 150 years

That's a pretty darn LOW standard to overcome...

Where is the SLR originating, given that 90% of Earth's ice on Antarctica has added at least 80 billion tons of ice every year since Algore first started lying about CO2, and the Himalayas, New Zealand, Mongolia etc. are also experiencing ice growth?

 

[Crick]

The SLR is in the world's oceans. It is originating in thermal expansion and runoff from the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and almost all the world's glaciers.

 

[LaDexter]

from the melting of Antarctica

We went to COURT on that, and your side was TOO CHICKEN to appeal...

Court Identifies Eleven Inaccuracies in Al Gore’s ‘An Inconvenient Truth’


How marvelous. And what are those inaccuracies?

• The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
• The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The Court found that the film was misleading: over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
• The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
• The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
• The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr Gore had misread the study: in fact four polar bears drowned and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
• The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream throwing Europe into an ice age: the Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
• The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
• The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
• The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting, the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
• The film suggests that sea levels could rise by 7m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
• The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

 

[Crick]

Those are NOT the court's conclusions and the court's conclusions did NOT say Antarctic ice was increasing. It can clearly and factually be demonstrated that you are a LIAR.

The facts regarding sea level rise are clearly demonstrated here:

Since mid 2011, sea level rise has been 6.8 mm/yr per UC and 7.2 mm/yr per NOAA

 

[Crick]

10 Things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

Sea level rise has been in the news a lot lately. Recent research has raised concerns about the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and how this could double sea level rise projections for 2100.

Sea level rise is potentially one of the most damaging results of climate change, but few people understand its risks. Its impacts — financial and otherwise — will spread far from the coasts.

Here are 10 things you should know about sea level rise, what causes it and how bad it might get.[Go to the link to read the explanatory text under each point]

1. There is enough water stored as ice to raise sea level 230 feet.

2. Sea levels have changed by hundreds of feet in the past.

3. We are changing sea level at a very rapid rate.

4. We could melt it all.

5. Scientists are racing to better understand how sea level will rise as temperatures climb higher and higher.

6. The last time sea levels changed significantly, there weren’t a lot of people around.

7. Sea level rise is not going to stop anytime soon.

8. Sea level rise will not be the same everywhere.

9. Melting Arctic sea ice does not contribute directly to sea level rise.

10. The cost of sea level rise will go up faster than sea level itself.

Motta has worked in the energy and environment field as a program manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He is currently an affiliate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research working on the communication of sea level rise risks and impacts.

White is professor of geological sciences, professor in the environmental studies program, and fellow and director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is a Web of Science most highly cited scientist (one of the top 1 percent most highly cited authors in his field).

Nerem is a professor of aerospace engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and leader of NASA’s sea level change team.

 

[jc456]

The SLR is in the world's oceans. It is originating in thermal expansion and runoff from the melting of Antarctica, Greenland and almost all the world's glaciers.

well since there is no run off of Greenland of Antarctica, not sure where your water comes from. expansion due to heat. first the oceans should heat up to actually work.

 

[jc456]

10 Things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

10 things you should know about sea level rise and how bad it could be

Sea level rise has been in the news a lot lately. Recent research has raised concerns about the possible collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and how this could double sea level rise projections for 2100.

Sea level rise is potentially one of the most damaging results of climate change, but few people understand its risks. Its impacts — financial and otherwise — will spread far from the coasts.

Here are 10 things you should know about sea level rise, what causes it and how bad it might get.[Go to the link to read the explanatory text under each point]

1. There is enough water stored as ice to raise sea level 230 feet.

2. Sea levels have changed by hundreds of feet in the past.

3. We are changing sea level at a very rapid rate.

4. We could melt it all.

5. Scientists are racing to better understand how sea level will rise as temperatures climb higher and higher.

6. The last time sea levels changed significantly, there weren’t a lot of people around.

7. Sea level rise is not going to stop anytime soon.

8. Sea level rise will not be the same everywhere.

9. Melting Arctic sea ice does not contribute directly to sea level rise.

10. The cost of sea level rise will go up faster than sea level itself.

Motta has worked in the energy and environment field as a program manager at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. He is currently an affiliate at the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research working on the communication of sea level rise risks and impacts.

White is professor of geological sciences, professor in the environmental studies program, and fellow and director of the Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder. He is a Web of Science most highly cited scientist (one of the top 1 percent most highly cited authors in his field).

Nerem is a professor of aerospace engineering Sciences at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and leader of NASA’s sea level change team.

no validity in any of that. useless drivel.

 

[IanC]

Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.

Back radiation would be a fine magical occurrence to start with. Also you seem to be dodging my repeated question so I will ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

What predictive failure of mine are you referencing? I cannot argue against some phantom thought rattling around in your head.

You are getting to be as good a dancer as crick...you must be so proud....Are you going to deny that predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis have failed to come to pass....like the tropospheric hot spot for instance? There are plenty of others that have been made in the past and yet, they never happened. So again..how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the work begins for a more viable hypothesis?

SameShitDifferentDay - why are you asking me to defend the very things that I have been attacking for the last seven years?

What I will not do is LIE to promote the 'Noble Cause'. for you it is denial of backradiation, for crick and old rocks it is catastrophic warming. you guys will say anything if you think it supports your side, no matter how stupid it is.

I have explained my position dozens of times. find, and then quote, something that I have said that you dont agree with. stop with the bullshit accusations of things you think I have said but in actuality only exist inside your head.

 

[SSDD]

SameShitDifferentDay - why are you asking me to defend the very things that I have been attacking for the last seven years?

So you have been attacking the greenhouse hypothesis for 7 years? I don't think so and would ask you to bring forward any quote by yourself attacking said hypothesis. You believe the hypothesis....but believe that it isn't as powerful as your completely wacko brethren...but you do believe.

So lets try this again....considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself. I am not talking about CAGW...which is so disproved at this point that it doesn't even warrant discussion...I am talking about the greenhouse hypothesis itself and its own failed predictions.. The hot spot is predicted by the greenhouse hypothesis....the ice cores fly in the face of the predictions of the greenhouse hypothesis...showing us that increased CO2 lags behind increased temperatures...not the other way around....there is no correlation between the increase of so called greenhouse gasses, and temperatures...another failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself...The miserably failed CAGW hypothesis is just a dingleberry on the equally failed greenhouse hypothesis claiming catastrophe resulting from the greenhouse effect itself as the concentration of so called greenhouse gasses increases in the atmosphere.

So again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the search for an actual explanation for the temperature on the planet and the actual drivers of our climate moves on?

 

[Crick]

considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.

No we don't. We have either your ignorance or your lies. The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot. It does predict cooling of the lower stratosphere, an effect produced by no other atmospheric process. Cooling of the lower stratosphere has been seen worldwide.

Got it?

 

[LaDexter]

The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot. It does predict cooling

and there you have it. Global Warming models PREDICT COOLING just in case it does cool and some smart humans notice it COOLING instead of WARMING.

 

[jc456]

Define this 'magic' that you say I believe in. Preferably with a quote of mine but if you are specific enough we can dispense with that.

Back radiation would be a fine magical occurrence to start with. Also you seem to be dodging my repeated question so I will ask again...how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped?

What predictive failure of mine are you referencing? I cannot argue against some phantom thought rattling around in your head.

You are getting to be as good a dancer as crick...you must be so proud....Are you going to deny that predictions based on the greenhouse hypothesis have failed to come to pass....like the tropospheric hot spot for instance? There are plenty of others that have been made in the past and yet, they never happened. So again..how many predictive failures do you think a hypothesis should be allowed before it is scrapped and the work begins for a more viable hypothesis?

SameShitDifferentDay - why are you asking me to defend the very things that I have been attacking for the last seven years?

What I will not do is LIE to promote the 'Noble Cause'. for you it is denial of backradiation, for crick and old rocks it is catastrophic warming. you guys will say anything if you think it supports your side, no matter how stupid it is.

I have explained my position dozens of times. find, and then quote, something that I have said that you dont agree with. stop with the bullshit accusations of things you think I have said but in actuality only exist inside your head.

explained by us many times, back radiation.

 

[jc456]

considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.

No we don't. We have either your ignorance or your lies. The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot. It does predict cooling of the lower stratosphere, an effect produced by no other atmospheric process. Cooling of the lower stratosphere has been seen worldwide.

Got it?

If IR is energy and energy is converted to heat, why do two same sized ice cubes flat face to flat face take longer to melt than one?

 

[Crick]

Your premise is meaningless nonsense. IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation.

Heat is:

1) added or external energy that causes a rise in temperature, expansion,evaporation, or other physical change.

2) Physics. a nonmechanical energy transfer with reference to a temperature difference between a system and its surroundings
or between two parts of the same system.

Two ice cubes placed face to face become a single ice cube of twice the mass. A larger mass of ice takes longer to melt in a glass sitting on a table as the heat transfer into the glass is the same in both cases. There's also the point that the combined cubes have a lower surface area to volume ratio than does the single cube.

 

[SSDD]

considering that the tropospheric hot spot... has not materialized, you have a serious predictive failure of the greenhouse hypothesis itself.

No we don't. We have either your ignorance or your lies. The greenhouse effect does not predict a tropospheric hotspot. It does predict cooling of the lower stratosphere, an effect produced by no other atmospheric process. Cooling of the lower stratosphere has been seen worldwide.

Got it?

Of course it does crick...here...from your high priests...the IPCC...

9.2.2 Spatial and Temporal Patterns of the Response to Different Forcings and their Uncertainties - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change

Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere, cooling in the stratosphere, and, for transient simulations, somewhat more warming near the surface in the NH due to its larger land fraction, which has a shorter surface response time to the warming than do ocean regions (Figure 9.1c).

 

[jc456]

Your premise is meaningless nonsense. IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation.

Heat is:

1) added or external energy that causes a rise in temperature, expansion,evaporation, or other physical change.

2) Physics. a nonmechanical energy transfer with reference to a temperature difference between a system and its surroundings
or between two parts of the same system.

Two ice cubes placed face to face become a single ice cube of twice the mass. A larger mass of ice takes longer to melt in a glass sitting on a table as the heat transfer into the glass is the same in both cases. There's also the point that the combined cubes have a lower surface area to volume ratio than does the single cube.

Does all matter emit or not. If it does, than each cube emits toward each other right? Isn't that your position? LOL.

 

[IanC]

explained by us many times, back radiation.

explained by us many times, radiation.


radiation, backradiation.

racism, reverse racism.

same type of idea, same type of vehement denial by illogical wackos

 

[IanC]

Your premise is meaningless nonsense. IR is a band of frequencies for electromagnetic radiation.

Heat is:

1) added or external energy that causes a rise in temperature, expansion,evaporation, or other physical change.

2) Physics. a nonmechanical energy transfer with reference to a temperature difference between a system and its surroundings
or between two parts of the same system.

Two ice cubes placed face to face become a single ice cube of twice the mass. A larger mass of ice takes longer to melt in a glass sitting on a table as the heat transfer into the glass is the same in both cases. There's also the point that the combined cubes have a lower surface area to volume ratio than does the single cube.

Does all matter emit or not. If it does, than each cube emits toward each other right? Isn't that your position? LOL.

holy fuck but you are stupid. why do you keep bringing up an example that proves our case and disproves yours?

if the environment is warmer than 0C then an ice cube is radiating at 0C but getting back radiation at room temp. it is losing (x) radiation but getting back (x+y) radiation, times six faces, total of 6 (y). if you put two ice cubes together then one face on each cube is radiating (x) and absorbing (x) for no change, while the other five faces are receiving (x+y) for a total of 5 (y) for each cube. 5(y) is less than 6(y) therefore the two ice cubes next to each other will take longer to melt.

what is so hard to understand about the simple relationship of warming/cooling being a function of both input and output? net transfer of energy. in the case of radiation there is energy going in both directions because photons do not interact with anything but matter.