NASA is using the GRACE satellites to measure the mass loss from the ice-caps on Antarctica and Greenland. Both are losing 100 gigatons of ice per year each.
That's about 0.55mm/year on its own, and the thermal expansion of sea water in response to anthropogenic global warming (which isn't cyclical, no matter how much Jim would like it to be) accounts for a few more millimetres a year.
The sea water in the Arctic ocean and around Antarctica is pretty cold, so it doesn't expand much as it warms up
formatting link
but global warming is a lot faster in the Arctic than it is in the rest of the world, which may compensate.
Easy. All we have to do is know a bit more about the engineering properties of the world than Jim does. Considering how remarkably ignorant he is, he does present his nonsense with comical self-confidence.
Yes, but there is no data that indicates a short term cycle. The trend has been 'up' for more than 200 years. Sure it will start to fall or stabilize for a period but there is no data that indicates when that will happen. The hard evidence indicates the sea levels will continue to rise.
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
"If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Low probability events are rare and memorable, but most people have enough sense to recognise this. The whole point about AGW is that it is a steady and so far relentless process, most clearly perceptible in the long term averages.
I'm sure that the denialists will male a song and dance about isolated events that go against the trend, while ignoring equally low frequency events (like the recent heat-wave in Australia) which go with the trend, but this is a fairly obvious trick, and you don't have to be particularly suspiscious to notice when it happens.
Denailist propaganda works - to some extent - but it works best on the less educated - which also shows up in the statistics you were cherry- picking (and haven't bother to cite here). People are already becoming aware that they are being fooled, and they don't like it. The denialists don't have good evidence and that's ultimately going to be fatal to their campaign.
Probably detecting misleading advertising and publicity campaigns. Look good in your neighbourhood - become an early adopter.
Certainly in the version of AGW that the denialists try to ascribe to its proponents. We hear claims about going back to the stone age, when in reality moving our society over to sustainable energy sources would require less adjustment to the cost of energy that we survived after the 1973 oil crisis, when the price of oil went up fourfold.
OPEC noticed that this markedly decreased the sales of oil, and we subsequently careful to jack up the price of oil slowly and steadily so as not to provoke the west into furhter investment in more energy efficient transport and heating.
It may be massively conceited to think that we are significantly raising the CO2 levels in the earth's atmosphere, but it doesn't make it any less true. Denying it isn't an exercise in humility - it's just foolish denial.
Just recently, China's investment in big dams in a geologically sensitive area was blamed for provoking a substantial earthquake. There's a mud volcanoe in Indonesia which seems to have been provoked by an oil company that drilled into a previously sealed reservoir of hot mud.
The fact that nature is "bigger" than man didn't stop us killing a number of forests with acid rain, nor from making a big hole in the ozone layer by releasing chlorofluorocarbons into the atmosphere.
The defect in the logic is much the same as the error that lets a large bully think that he can safely assault an master of judo who is smaller than he is; a gross over-simplificantion of reality.
As ever, Jim proves himself to be out of touch with reality.
If he'd ever read any of Al Gore's books, he'd know that Al Gore was not a leader of an anthropogenic global warming movement, but rather a politician who has chosen to familiarise himself with the scientific case for global warming, and to present it ot the public. He's an advocate, not a leader.
And how's Al Gore going to force anything on anybody? His only weapon would seem to be his oratory, and that was not good enough to let him beat a nitwit like Dubbya in the 2000 presidential election.
A few show trials of the more flamboyant crooks int the Bush-Cheney adminstration? Kenneth Starr still seems to be available to dig out the dirt.
Yep, the AGW crowd have been doing this for years. The BBC can't report anything without a mention of global warming.
A warm summer in the UK. Global warming.
A glacier melts a bit for a coule of days. global warming.
A lower than usual artic sea ice. Global warming.
Michael Mann. Global warming.
formatting link
/quote
Christmas will be coming a little late to Belfast this year after a mini global warming disaster struck the city's Christmas tree.
/end quote
formatting link
/quote
Scientists in Chile have blamed climate change for the sudden disappearance of a lake in the south of the country. Park rangers who patrolled the area in the Magallanes region in March reported that the two-hectare (five-acre) glacial lake was its normal size.
But two months later they found a huge dry crater and stranded chunks of ice that previously floated on the water
/end quote
You're a typical Nazi. Blame eveyone else for what you are doing.
IMHO most engineers don't fall for AGW. In the end engineering is evidence based. Unlike scientists, who can disappear up there own backsides, engineers have to get a sucessful result. Try persuading a customer that a product that can't be demonstated works.
Which would be interesting, if anybody had ever established any connection between the solar cycle and global temperature; the thermnal output from the sun doesn't change enough to explain the differences that have been seen, and if there are any non-therrmal effects, nobody has produced any persuasive evidence for such a effect. The 1991 paper that claimed to do so looked a lot less persuasive after critical review had corrected the convenient errors in the data it presented, which doesn't stop denialist web-sites posting references to the original paper and presenting the defective graph.
This isn't the first time I've pointed this out to Ravinghorde, but he doesn't seem to be equipped to process the message.
We haven't been measuring the output of the sun long enough to know. Other than sunspot data we don't have much info going back to the Dalton mimimum aroud 1800 or the Maunder minimum that coincides with the little ice age.
We also know the medieval warm period coincides with a solar grand maximum.
And before you trot out your usual argument that the MWP and LIA are only northern hemisphere and no evidence from the southern hemisphere. That is irrelevant. Unless you can demonstrate southern hemisphere cooling in the MWP and southern hemisphere heating in the LIA then the average is global warming in the MWP and global cooling in the LIA.
I'm responsible for the fact that British "science" journalists never seem to have any scienfific training?
Dutch science journalists are a whole lot better, as I've mnetioned here before.
Quite how this would make me a Nazi, I leave to Ravinghorde's fertile and uninhibited imagination. He doesn't seem to feel any guilt about rabbiting on about stuff he knows very little about,
Ravinghorde doesn't seem to appreciate that science, like engineering, is evidence based. I've met enough engineers who have "disappeared up their own backsides" when they could not validate their claims with working equipment, to be well aware of the problem he is referring to.
If he knew a bit more about the science involved, rather than taking most of his opinions from denialist web-sites and his fertile imagination, he might realise that anthropogenic global warming rests on a large and well-verified body of theory aand experiment. The earth's atmosphere and oceans are complex and their interactions are more complex still, so we can't yet make the kind of minute by minute predictions that he seems to want to see, but we know enough to be able to reliably predict that keeping on burning fossil carbon at the present accelerating rate would make a big enough mess of the climate to lead to a human population crash within a couple of generations.
Jim's opinions on stuff outside of the devices he designs are nowhere near humble enough; he seems to acquire his opinions from conversations with other right-wing nitwits who know even less than he does (difficult though this is to imagine).
So you are now disowning the AGW propagada. Perhaps you will disown Algore as well.
You claim I know very little but are unable to come up with the facts to prove me wrong. This doesn't say much for your knowledge in comparison to mine.
In over a month of searching the web I've yet to find a causal link between rising CO2 and rising temperature of the magnitude claimed by the AGW crowd. Despite my many posts here in the last 5 weeks and your many responses you have failed to come up with the evidence for CO2 causing the claimed warming. You assert it is true but no evidence.
The theory seems to be we don't think anything else is causing the rise in temperature so it must be caused by CO2 because that's what we want to prove.
I believe, until I see solid evidence to the contrary, that the dominent effect is solar, both the thermal and magnetic output of the sun.
No, if I keep paying water management tax (not a joke), the government will keep my feet dry :-)
--
Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply
indicates you are not using the right tools...
"If it doesn\'t fit, use a bigger hammer!"
--------------------------------------------------------------
What the southern hemisphere data seems to indicate is their local climate exhibited as much noise as we can see in the European data, but the temperature maxima and minima fell at different times. The amplitude and frequency spectrum seems to be in the same ball park, but that's as far as it goes.
Your claim that a maximun or minimum around the north Atlantic can stand as a proxy for the temperature of the whole globe is thus less than persuasive. You are focussing on one end of what could have been a seesaw, but would in fact more likely have been changing patterns of heat transfer between a number of different areas around the globe.
BBC journalists using ABW as a "hook" to hang their stories on doesn't make them AGW propagandists. Anybody seriously interested in educating the public about AGW would avoid this kind of silly association with extremely warm weather precisely because it implicitly supports the denialists equally silly claims that isolated episodes of extremely cold weather falsify anthropogenic global warming.
Al Gore is an advocate of anthropogenic global warming, and of necessity a little too fond of gripping examples that get peoples attention, and less scrupulous than he might be in choosing these examples, but he's been getting the story pretty right since the early
1990's. and I think the Nobel Peace Prize committee were justified in splitting the prize between him and the IPCC - he has been a very effective advocate.
Since you don't pay any attention to the facts when I do find them, this is a more than usually empty claim, even for you.
W
e
-
g
a
That's because you aren't equipped to understand the evidence that you can find.
The evidence is solid enough. More CO2 in the atmosphere means that the surface of the earth is warnmer than it would be if there were less. Because the surface of the oceans is warmer, the vapour pressure of water in the atmosphere is higher, which provides additional greenhouse warming. If you want to find out how much, you've got to dig through the various models of the atmosphere and compute what seems to be going on. It is a complex situation, and the various models simplify it in different ways to reduce the computation required to within practicable bounds. The IPCC collects the results of this work from the peer-reviewed scientific lliterature and publishes it at a level that you should be able to follow, if you were so inclined.
The fact that you can't understand the evidence isn't a good basis for claiming that it doesn't exist.
That's your - inadequate - understanding of what is going on. It is wrong. I've explained why before, but I've yet to find a form of words that strikes you as persuasive.
Since there isnt a shred of sold evidence to support that theory, you've just established - once again - that your position is entirely based on uninformed prejudice. You can't comprehend the solid evidence that does exist, and you attach yourself to an exploded theory for which no solid evidence exists.
If the "sea levels will continue to rise", your candy-assed government isn't going to keep your feet dry, no matter what taxes you pay. ...and you will pay.
Why there is so much focus on events we know far, far less about is more about remaining confused and less about knowing something useful. You yourself said, "We haven't been measuring the output of the sun long enough to know. Other than sunspot data we don't have much info..." And yet you place such tremendous emphasis on exactly those elements: sunspots and solar output and periods of time well before this recent half century of warming, where there is a strong, general consensus in the science community. There is less agreement over the warming from 1850 to 1950. There is far, far less scientific consensus if you go back even earlier.
Which is the peg you hang yourself on.
In fact, to point up the lack of consensus I'm talking about, the IPCC says "the conventional terms of 'Little Ice Age' and 'Medieval Warm Period' appear to have limited utility in describing trends in hemispheric or global mean temperature changes in past centuries." This isn't a statement about what the LIA and MWP mean, it's a statement that there isn't sufficient evidence at this time from which to make definitive claims. The IPCC adds, regarding the MWP, that what "records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century." In addition, so far as I'm aware, various ice cores, tree ring analyses, and lake deposit analyses have collectively shown that global mean actually averaged slightly cooler than the early/mid 20th century figure.
Although the IPCC talks about the LIA saying, "current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of anomalous cold or warmth over this timeframe," there are some scientific indicators of low solar activity using C14 and Be10 isotopes. But there also some significant volcanic activity (Tambora, for example) and the possibility of a slowdown of the THC/MOC, too. How local, how global, and what affected what and by how much is rather in question and so far as I know, not even close to resolved.
Reaching into areas of profound scientific uncertainty is a great way to emphasize things more imagined than real. You embrace uncertainty. I know why, of course.
What is known fairly well is direct observation of insolation from
1979 on, by way of satellites, and reasonably good information on the errors associated with them as well; an extremely good and well understood observation of global temperature means (and northern hemisphere means, as well) in this century; extremely precise data on the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere; and excellent radiation physics theory coupled with line-by-line radiation physics models that can accurately model propagation, tested by many observations. When talking about the last half-century, the mechanisms are pretty well understood; the observations consistent; the scientific consensus solid.
Yes, the sun _may_ affect Earth's climate. Obviously. But the fact remains that measured insolation from the sun since 1979 cannot and does not explain observations in recent global temperature increases. If you want to reach into times when the telescope was either just a glimmer in the eye of some future inventor or else barely in existence, when temperature wasn't understood let alone measured; and people still imagined that 'fire' resided within objects to be released... to rely upon these as the basis of unseating what actually _IS NOW KNOWN_ about the last half-century, then have at it. The fact is, the sun is NOT the cause of recent trends. While correlation does not imply causation, causation does imply correlation. There is a decided lack of correlation between insolation and the last half century worth of recent global warming. But there is a great deal known, both in theory of causes and observational correlation to those theories, about recent warming trends.
It's as simple as that and you need to deal first with those facts.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.