gcthomas
New member
The actual measured sea levels of North Carolina suggest you are mistaken.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8658120.png
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/trends/8658120.png
climate change
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
So far, it's mostly thermal expansion, not melting continental glaciers.
Let's see what we have...
Sea level rise is exaggerated
Not false, just "exaggerated?" Someone's backpedalling a bit, here...
Well, let's take a look...
Gavin Schmidt investigated the claim that tide gauges on islands in the Pacific Ocean show no sea level rise and found that the data show a rising sea level trend at every single station. But what about global sea level rise?
Sea level rises as ice on land melts and as warming ocean waters expand. As well as being a threat to coastal habitation and environments, sea level rise corroborates other evidence of global warming
The blue line in the graph below clearly shows sea level as rising, while the upward curve suggests sea level is rising faster as time goes on. The upward curve agrees with global temperature trends and with the accelerating melting of ice in Greenland and other places.
Because sea level behavior is such an important signal for tracking climate change, skeptics seize on the sea level record in an effort to cast doubt on this evidence. Sea level bounces up and down slightly from year to year so it's possible to cherry-pick data falsely suggesting the overall trend is flat, falling or linear. You can try this yourself. Starting with two closely spaced data points on the graph below, lay a straight-edge between them and notice how for a short period of time you cancreate almost any slope you prefer, simply by being selective about what data points you use. Now choose data points farther apart. Notice that as your selected data points cover more time, the more your mini-graph reflects the big picture. The lesson? Always look at all the data, don't be fooled by selective presentations.
From the investigation of denier claims:
This is even odder. The report Gray cites states clearly that relative sea level trends (1992/3/4 to 2006) at all stations were positive (2.7 to 8.1 mm/year for the 11 of the 12 stations with long enough records). The 12th station at FSM was only installed in 2001 and the trends were very noisy (though positive).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/10/a-sea-level-golden-horseshoe-nominee/
Those petunias think you're stuffed with prunes. Probably liberals.
Green, you know.
That's correct Voltaire.
Here's an example of one at Marysville, CA:
The sensors are supposed to be in the middle of a field, but as we see above, this one is next to an asphalt parking lot, and near roof top condensors that omit great amounts of heat. Not to mention the heat that is omitted from cars in the parking lot.
LOL.
NOAA uses models to come up with sea levels.
Anything that uses models is not facts.
Sorry Chicken Little, but the sea level isn't rising.
gcthomas
New member
That's correct Voltaire.
Here's an example of one at Marysville, CA:
The sensors are supposed to be in the middle of a field, but as we see above, this one is next to an asphalt parking lot, and near roof top condensors that omit great amounts of heat. Not to mention the heat that is omitted from cars in the parking lot.
What is the effect of removing the allegedly poorly sited results from the national warming figures?
If removing them adjusted the temperature figure upwards, would you accept that your complaint is baseless and that the US is warming?
Um.......it wouldn't be as warm as you hoax followers say it is.
gcthomas
New member
Huh?
The models are used for predictions.
These were actual measurements, not the predictions from the model. They were recorded by making sea level measurements.
GCThomas asks:
He took the bait. Set the hook now...
He took the bait. Set the hook now...
Right Divider
Body part
Can you think of a single theoretical example of something that would make a collection device read an artificially low temperature instead of artificially high temperature?
These devices are all devices that generate heat. Therefore is something like the ventilation is not what it should be, they will heat UP and not down. If they are located near other structures, the same thing can happen.... more heat near the device and not less (and not ambient 'global' heat, but localized heat from a 'hot spot' of some kind).
gcthomas
New member
Since you ask, yes I can.
The electronic temperature sensors in the photo of a poorly station tend to record slightly warm for minimum temperatures and substantially cool for maximum temperatures. This means that they under represent the urban heat island effect.
If you take these unreliable data or and rely instead only on the Mercury in glass type then the measured warming is stronger than claimed.
When you add in unreliable data, measures may go down a well as up.
Right Divider
Body part
So the systems are completely unreliable at any temperature? and we rely on these to make our judgements?
gcthomas
New member
No. The objection you had for the poorly sited weather stations does not allow you to reject the results from the reliable ones. If you ONLY take the readings from the very well sited and most reliable stations, then the warming effect is still obvious and, in fact, stronger.
Do you have technical objections for the well sited and reliable stations that not even Wattsup have managed to claim an objection for yet?
There was a popular denier website that made up a hit list of supposedly inaccurate stations. So someone took the data from only the ones they thought were good.
And the warming trend was actually stronger when the "bad" stations were removed. So we don't hear much about the "inaccurate stations" any more, unless it's a really dumb denier.
And the warming trend was actually stronger when the "bad" stations were removed. So we don't hear much about the "inaccurate stations" any more, unless it's a really dumb denier.
if it can be shown that the average daily solar insolation since 1900 up to the last solar cycle was greater than the average daily solar insolation of the previous one hundred years before that, would you be willing to concede.that solar insolation is more likely to have caused the warming since 1950 then the increased carbon dioxide concentration since 1950???? @ barbarian
Given the data that show carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths other gases do not and that there has been a substantial increase in carbon dioxide that coincides with a similar increase in temps, one would be very resistant to reality if one denied the obvious. There have been various other events that have affected trends both up and down over the last 100 years or so, but the warming trend from carbon dioxide has overridden them all.
How do you know it was carbon dioxide doing the warming and not an increase in solar insulation? While it is true that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared in that band,, is every increase in carbon dioxide absorbed at the same linear rate??? Isn't there diminishing returns in absorbed heat for every increase in carbon dioxide? Can we rule out the possibility that extra amounts of carbon dioxide after 280 ppm did not absorb an extra significant amount of infrared?, if takes a while for a kettle of water to boil if you increase the heat under it. If the solar insolation in the 20 the century was 4% higher on a daily basis than it was during g the 19 the century, wouldn't it take a while for the oceanic " kettle" to boil after that increase in solar insulation started and continued at that elevated rate? If so, that would explain the rise of the twentieth century of 1.5 °F. The pause or drop from 1940 to 1970, could be explained by aerosols. The pause after 1998 can be explained by the kettle analogy as well. The kettle finally reaches a point of equilibrium with a constant applied heat. The weak solar cycle 24 also helps explain the pause. My point is there is no reason to insist that carbon dioxide has been the culprit unless you can prove extra carbon dioxide always absorbs extra heat in a linear manner.
gcthomas
New member
The forcing effect of the CO2 is undisputed and precisely known. The uncertainty is in the effects of the feedback mechanisms, such as water vapour.
The only limit that I'm aware of is that it can't absorb more infrared radiation than the planet emits. And it's nowhere near that limit. What other limit would there be?
Venus, despite being significantly further from the Sun than Mercury, is still far hotter. The primary reason for this difference is thought to be greenhouse-gas warming resulting from its CO2 atmosphere.
No. Why do you think we could?
Water has a high specific heat capacity.
Yes, it would. That's why the change has been so gradual. In fact, the change in temperature hasn't even reached the deep ocean yet. And the oceans are the largest carbon sink in the world, so they act to stabilize the concentrations up to a point.
I'm not sure how this analogy applies to the Earth thermal equlibrium system. The Sun is basically a constant source, but the atmosphere is changing. If you want an analogy to cooking, think about what happens when you cover a pot. It gets hotter inside because less heat is escaping.
What pause? Mean surface temperatures keep going up.
I don't think anyone claims that the impact of CO2 is linear exactly. The more infrared radiation we absorb, the less there is left to absorb, so there must be an upper limit. But we are nowhere near it. If the planet's atmosphere were completely opaque to infrared radiation but not to solar radiation, I suppose the planet would keep warming until the temperature was high enough to radiate at a higher band. But we are nowhere near this.
Last edited:
Im not interested in "forcing" mumbo jumbo. I want to know if 100 ppm of co2 added to the atmosphere holds the same amount of infrared energy as the prior 100 ppm that were added before. If not, and if the amount of energy held onto in the atmosphere decreases with each equal amount of _co2 added then co2 is not the culprit for global warming.