Arctic ice melt could trigger uncontrollable climate change at global level

  • Thread starter Thread starter lynnvinc
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LeafByNiggle said:
The sea level rise that is accelerating is the global average sea level - not the sea level at one particular location, which is all this graph addresses.
Click to expand...
If you wish to address global sea level, wouldn’t that necessitate satellite measurements?
Previously they couldn’t measure all over the globe.
Just a few places where these measurements were taken.
 
Ender said:
Sea level rise has been pretty much unchanged since measurements began. The longest tide gauge data record NOAA has is at the Battery, NY; it goes back 160 years. The rate of sea level rise it has recorded has been constant. It is not increasing.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/clip_image00210.jpg

The measured rates are about a foot per century (2.84 mm/yr)
The more likely reason is that those islands are sinking, a phenomenon noted by Darwin back in the 19th century.

Ender
Click to expand...
Never trust weathermen like Watts, who know nada about climate and climate change…Better to trust JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis on CC than Watts, who seems to be totally uninformed about the reality and totally unwilling to face it. I consider everything from wattsupwiththat to be bogus and unreliable – a big lie, bordering on evil for what it is trying to accomplish by dissuading people from turning off lights not in use and the many other things they should be doing to mitigate CC. Bad, bad, bad.

Actually those in the know expect the sea level to rise much more than even the IPCC projects, since the IPCC only bases it on water expansion from the warming and not glacier melt – which some glaciologists are saying is happening faster than expected. So those in the know know that it could rise even by 2 meters by 2100.

Of course, there will be people living and struggling on earth after 2100, so eventually the rise will be a whole lot greater over the centuries and millennia. Not Waterworld, but neverthess harmful to agri land, much of which lies in deltas and low coastal regions with all the great alluvial soil.
 
TheCuriousCat said:
Okay, I found this research, and I read through it. The only conclusion I can reach is that you haven’t. It deals with cloud cover given a limited number of factors in the complete absence of fossil fuel particulates. Not remotely what you said it said.
Click to expand...
The research disputes the model assumptions about pre-industrial cloud coverage, the implication is the assumed positive feedback will be less than modeled, it will result in a lower ECS, or lower projected warming. As the video says, “reduce and sharpen”.

This video explains the research clearly
youtube.com/watch?v=8M3up6T9Zeg
 
Theo520 said:
The research disputes the model assumptions about pre-industrial cloud coverage, the implication is the assumed positive feedback will be less than modeled, it will result in a lower ECS, or lower projected warming. As the video says, “reduce and sharpen”.

This video explains the research clearly
youtube.com/watch?v=8M3up6T9Zeg
Click to expand...
Even if this CERN model does turn out to be correct, it is a long way from showing that the models used so far are “pulled out of some coder’s hind quarters”. At most this will result in a minor adjustment to the models.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Even if this CERN model does turn out to be correct, it is a long way from showing that the models used so far are “pulled out of some coder’s hind quarters”. At most this will result in a minor adjustment to the models. But it does not grossly discredit them.
Click to expand...
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Even if this CERN model does turn out to be correct, it is a long way from showing that the models used so far are “pulled out of some coder’s hind quarters”. At most this will result in a minor adjustment to the models.
Click to expand...
The feedback assumptions I reference were made without any supporting data, they were pulled out of some coder’s hind quarter, and conveniently greatly added to the resultant warming.

This research is significant, it will finally lead to a reduction and tightening in the 1.5-4.5C warming projection we’ve used for over 30 years. It will also help put away the more alarmist projections of up to 8C in warming.
 
edwest2 said:
So, we’ll all be dead. I guess I will have not paying taxes to look forward to. Has anyone passed this on to the companies that pollute the planet?

Ed
Click to expand...
No, this generation will be okay, at least those of moderate means in the 1st world. It’s that we’re killing people on into the far distant future.

It’s the future generations who will suffer the most from CC. Do we care about them? That’s the question.
 
lynnvinc said:
Never trust weathermen like Watts, who know nada about climate and climate change…Better to trust JPII, BXVI, and Pope Francis on CC than Watts, who seems to be totally uninformed about the reality and totally unwilling to face it. I consider everything from wattsupwiththat to be bogus and unreliable – a big lie, bordering on evil for what it is trying to accomplish by dissuading people from turning off lights not in use and the many other things they should be doing to mitigate CC. Bad, bad, bad.
Click to expand...
And this is what constitutes argument from the true believer. Even though the citation I used was of a chart from NOAA, the fact that it came from a “denier” blog means we can all just ignore it. A big lie. Bordering on evil.

For some reason I cannot post the chart from the NOAA website, but here is the link to it:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

You’ll note that it is of course the same chart I posted earlier. Should we consider NOAA co-conspirators in the big lie?
So those in the know know that it could rise even by 2 meters by 2100.
Click to expand...
“Those in the know” apparently does not include those at NOAA. Unlike the rest of us, the true believer is not restricted to mere data.

Ender
 
Ender said:
And this is what constitutes argument from the true believer. Even though the citation I used was of a chart from NOAA, the fact that it came from a “denier” blog means we can all just ignore it. A big lie. Bordering on evil.

For some reason I cannot post the chart from the NOAA website, but here is the link to it:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

You’ll note that it is of course the same chart I posted earlier. Should we consider NOAA co-conspirators in the big lie?
Click to expand...
It isn’t so much a lie as it is irrelevant. As I said before, this chart is only for the Battery, New York. The claim being made is about the global average sea level.
 
Ender said:
And this is what constitutes argument from the true believer. Even though the citation I used was of a chart from NOAA, the fact that it came from a “denier” blog means we can all just ignore it. A big lie. Bordering on evil.

For some reason I cannot post the chart from the NOAA website, but here is the link to it:
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750

You’ll note that it is of course the same chart I posted earlier. Should we consider NOAA co-conspirators in the big lie?
“Those in the know” apparently does not include those at NOAA. Unlike the rest of us, the true believer is not restricted to mere data.

Ender
Click to expand...
Watts really knows how to fool people. Just don’t trust him at all. He makes it sound scientific, but it is all pseudo-science to dissuade and harm life on earth. He just doesn’t care a wit.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The sea level rise that is accelerating is the global average sea level - not the sea level at one particular location, which is all this graph addresses.
Click to expand...
Funny thing about water, it will flow to lower levels. The sea level in the Indian Ocean is not different from the seal level in the Pacific Ocean or Atlantic Ocean.
 
lynnvinc said:
Watts really knows how to fool people. Just don’t trust him at all. He makes it sound scientific, but it is all pseudo-science to dissuade and harm life on earth. He just doesn’t care a wit.
Click to expand...
Is it the same chart? Yes or no only please.
 
zz912 said:
Funny thing about water, it will flow to lower levels. The sea level in the Indian Ocean is not different from the seal level in the Pacific Ocean or Atlantic Ocean.
Click to expand...
Local sea level is also affected by winds and currents. The levels are not the same everywhere.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The sea level rise that is accelerating is the global average sea level - not the sea level at one particular location, which is all this graph addresses.
Click to expand...
Really? I showed the chart for this site because it has the longest period of data - 160 years, but if you prefer we can look at another site, say the one on Rabaul in Papua, New Guinea. This site is less than 200 miles from the Carteret Islands, the ones Lynnvinc held up as evidence of the harm done by sea level rise caused by global warming. What’s your objection to this one…other than the fact that (a) there is not a lot of data, and (b) the trend is actually negative?
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=670-021

Ender
 
Ender said:
Really? I showed the chart for this site because it has the longest period of data - 160 years, but if you prefer we can look at another site, say the one on Rabaul in Papua, New Guinea. This site is less than 200 miles from the Carteret Islands, the ones Lynnvinc held up as evidence of the harm done by sea level rise caused by global warming. What’s your objection to this one…other than the fact that (a) there is not a lot of data, and (b) the trend is actually negative?
tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_global_station.htm?stnid=670-021

Ender
Click to expand...
I would say this observation is equally irrelevant. (And therefore so is Lynn’s observation about Carteret Islands, which might be sinking.) The most accurate way to measure the global average sea level rise is based on satellites. And GPS data can help to measure when the land rises and falls, and so use that data to correct tide gauge measurements. You can start here.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Local sea level is also affected by winds and currents. The levels are not the same everywhere.
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do with your post. You claimed that average sea levels were rising, but possibly not sea levels at particular locations. This is absolutely false. If sea levels are rising, they will rise across the whole planet.
 
gilliam said:
Here is a chart (click on it for bigger picture) showing both an average of tide gauges and satellite data. Looks like the satellite data shows a slower increase in sea elevation. However the sea elevation is getting higher. Which makes sense since we are seeing ice melt.

epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/small/public/2016-07/sea-level-figure1-2016.png
Click to expand...
Have to remember that sea levels have always been rising at a fairly consistent rate since the last ice age subsided about 10000 years ago. Long, long before the modern industrial age. For instance, Phoenician seaports can be found under about 20 feet of water now. What’s in dispute is whether that rate has accelerated at all, let alone due to MMGW. I’m not convinced either way. One can pull certain NOAA data to say one thing and other NOAA data to take the other side of that argument.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
Have to remember that sea levels have always been rising at a fairly consistent rate since the last ice age subsided about 10000 years ago. Long, long before the modern industrial age. For instance, Phoenician seaports can be found under about 20 feet of water now. What’s in dispute is whether that rate has accelerated at all, let alone due to MMGW. I’m not convinced either way. One can pull certain NOAA data to say one thing and other NOAA data to take the other side of that argument.
Click to expand...
But if the Arctic is melting, surely the water must be going somewhere?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top