It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

20 new science papers find climate driven by solar changes

page: 21
91
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 10 2017 @ 08:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Source please, and not just the link to the EPA guv site, the actual report that you found this in if you wouldn't mind.

It's a semi empirical reconstruction i know that much and it does not show what the IPCC has stated.



It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr –1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr –1 ; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.




posted on May, 10 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Phage

Source please, and not just the link to the EPA guv site, the actual report that you found this in if you wouldn't mind.

It's a semi empirical reconstruction i know that much and it does not show what the IPCC has stated.



It is very likely that the global mean rate was 1.7 [1.5 to 1.9] mm yr –1 between 1901 and 2010 for a total sea level rise of 0.19 [0.17 to 0.21] m. Between 1993 and 2010, the rate was very likely higher at 3.2 [2.8 to 3.6] mm yr –1 ; similarly high rates likely occurred between 1920 and 1950.

I created the graph with the data from the website. The source of that data is linked on the website.


It's a semi empirical reconstruction i know that much and it does not show what the IPCC has stated.
Actually, it is quite close to the IPCC report. Once you convert inches to millimeters.
edit on 5/10/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Do tell us Phage, how does the fact that geothermal heating/underwater volcano activity has been increasing in temperatures and contributing greatly to the melting of glaciers? How would that affect the claim that "CO2 is the one causing the melting of glaciers", when there are dozens of research papers which state underwater volcanic activity has been increasing and melting glaciers?

High geothermal heat flux measured below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

A 'hydrothermal siphon' drives water circulation through the seafloor

Researchers Find Major West Antarctic Glacier Melting from Geothermal Sources

Mid-ocean ridge eruptions as a climate valve Maya Tolstoy

Although some scientists think these events are rare, others think such underwater volcanic activity is more common than presumed so far.

Fire under the ice

NASA Sees Arctic Ocean Circulation Do an About-Face

Geothermal Heat Flux and its Influence on the Oceanic Abyssal Circulation and Radiocarbon Distribution

The changes in geothermal heating was also found to have increased in the 1980s.

The geothermal heating of the abyssal subarctic Pacific Ocean

Yet geothermal heating has also been found to have continued increasing in the Pacific ocean.


Bottom water warming in the North Pacific Ocean

Masao Fukasawa1, Howard Freeland2, Ron Perkin2, Tomowo Watanabe3,5, Hiroshi Uchida1 & Ayako Nishina4

Ocean Observation and Research Department, Japan Marine Science and Technology Centre, Yokosuka, 237-0061, Japan
The Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, British Columbia, V8L 4B2, Canada
Far-fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Shimizu, 424-8633, Japan
Faculty of Fisheries, Kagoshima University, Kagoshima, 890-0056, Japan
Present address: Central Fisheries Laboratory, Japan Fisheries Agency, Japan

Correspondence to: Masao Fukasawa1Howard Freeland2 Email: fksw@jamstec.go.jp
Email: FreelandHj@pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca

Top of page
Abstract

Observations of changes in the properties of ocean waters have been restricted to surface1 or intermediate-depth waters2, 3, because the detection of change in bottom water is extremely difficult owing to the small magnitude of the expected signals. Nevertheless, temporal changes in the properties of such deep waters across an ocean basin are of particular interest, as they can be used to constrain the transport of water at the bottom of the ocean and to detect changes in the global thermohaline circulation. Here we present a comparison of a trans-Pacific survey completed in 1985 (refs 4, 5) and its repetition in 1999 (ref. 6). We find that the deepest waters of the North Pacific Ocean have warmed significantly across the entire width of the ocean basin. Our observations imply that changes in water properties are now detectable in water masses that have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere.

www.nature.com...

The entire planet is changing. Global geothermal activity has been increasing all over the globe alongside earthquake activity, which despite your claims have also been increasing. We are also seeing similar changes in planets and moons with an atmosphere in the Solar System. The entire Earth is reacting to the new environment in the local fluff the solar system is moving into.


edit on 10-5-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Forgot this one.



Research article
19 Feb 2013
Observations of water masses and circulation with focus on the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean from the 1990s to the late 2000s

...
. The temperature of the deep water of the Eurasian Basin has increased in the last 10 yr rather more than expected from geothermal heating. That geothermal heating does influence the deep water column was obvious from 2007 Polarstern observations made close to a hydrothermal vent in the Gakkel Ridge, where the temperature minimum usually found above the 600–800 m thick homogenous bottom layer was absent. However, heat entrained from the Atlantic water into descending, saline boundary plumes may also contribute to the warming of the deeper layers.

Citation: Rudels, B., Schauer, U., Björk, G., Korhonen, M., Pisarev, S., Rabe, B., and Wisotzki, A.: Observations of water masses and circulation with focus on the Eurasian Basin of the Arctic Ocean from the 1990s to the late 2000s, Ocean Sci., 9, 147-169, doi:10.5194/os-9-147-2013, 2013.

www.ocean-sci.net...



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
edited for double post

edit on 10-5-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Aye.

Good job on the chart, it's better than the one on the EPA guv site.

The Church and White paper...

Tidal gauge data tortured and reconstructed.

Turn it into a great Semi Empircal data set to show whatever they want to show.

The real tidal gauge data shows no such acceleration.

Even the University of Colorado themselves admit there has been no acceleration of sea level rise.

Playing with models is not the same as showing empirical evidence that the sea level is indeed experiencing an acceleration in rise.


Past estimates of twentieth-century sea level rise depended on tide-gauge records, some of which extend back before 1900. However, these records contain significant decadal variability, and their sparse coverage areas back through time produce significant uncertainties in estimates of twentieth-century sea level trends. Satellite altimeters have produced high-quality measurements of sea level since 1993. To combine tide-gauge and satellite data sets, Church and White (2006) used reductions of large matrices of satellite spatial data into fundamental mathematical relationships which reflect variability seen in the original observations. They then used tide-gauge data to determine changes in amplitude between consecutive months of a selected number of these reductions. Extrapolating from these trends, the authors reconstructed estimates of global mean sea level back to 1870 and found that between 1870 and 2004, sea level likely rose 195 mm. This yields a twentieth-century rate of sea level rise of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm/yr, with accelerations of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm/yr². If this acceleration were to remain constant, the sea level will rise about 300 mm above current values by 2100.

edit on 10-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So many variables that are little understood.

The science is far from settled.

I want my carbon tax back!


n 1992, it was thought that volcanic degassing released something like 100 million tons of CO2 each year. Around the turn of the millennium, this figure was getting closer to 200. The most recent estimate, released this February, comes from a team led by Mike Burton, of the Italian National Institute of Geophysics and Volcanology – and it’s just shy of 600 million tons. It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

And that degassing is only taking in consideration the 50-55 land volcanoes that are being monitored out of the 150 total land volcanoes on Earth. It doesn't even take in consideration the estimated 3 million underwater volcanoes, many which are much larger than their land cousins.

Here is another study published in Nature that shows geothermal activity has been melting glaciers even in Greenland.

Earth's internal heat drives rapid ice flow and subglacial melting in Greenland

But hey, we have got the AGW brigade trying to tell us to ignore all these facts that the entire Earth is changing in many ways. They also try to ignore/dismiss all the changes occurring not only to Earth, but those changes also happening in the entire solar system because they want to hold on to this belief that "mankind is the cause of climate change".


edit on 10-5-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:50 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


And that degassing is only taking in consideration the 50-55 land volcanoes that are being monitored out of the 150 total land volcanoes on Earth. It doesn't even take in consideration the estimated 3 million underwater volcanoes, many which are much larger than their land cousins.
WOW, thats a lot of volcanoes that have not been studied.



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee



By Catherine Brahic

The true extent to which the ocean bed is dotted with volcanoes has been revealed by researchers who have counted 201,055 underwater cones. This is over 10 times more than have been found before.

The team estimates that in total there could be about 3 million submarine volcanoes, 39,000 of which rise more than 1000 metres over the sea bed.
...

www.newscientist.com...



posted on May, 10 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Sea Level Change Chapter 13:


“Despite the successful calibration and evaluation of semi-empirical models against the observed 20th century sea level record, there is no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability, and consequently low confidence in projections based on them. [13.5.2, 13.5.3, Figure 13.12]”



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:25 AM
link   
D8Tee The cook 97% is in error as I also checked and seemed so, but multiple sources show 80+% consensus from various surveys.



When global dimming due to human and natural sources is taken into account correlation is pretty good.

Just a drop from planes after 9 11 for 3 days resulted in a 1degree rise in temperature across the U.S. Rumors are a vast drop in human caused global dimming could yield anywhere between 1 to 3 degree within short order... such an event due to various causes could occur even within a decade, which would combined with positive feedbacks unleashed cause quite a bit of trouble.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Xenogears




D8Tee The cook 97% is in error as I also checked and seemed so, but multiple sources show 80+% consensus from various surveys.
Right, the Cook paper is misrepresented to say the least.

What are the other multiple sources? If you name the survey we could look into it further and get the numbers. It really does matter how the questions are asked. Try to find your sources of the consensus and post them, lets see what is behind them.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Article #1: no finding of increased geothermal activity but it does provide an explanation for the abundance of ice streams and subglacial lakes in a particular region of Antarctica.

Article #2: no finding of increased geothermal activity.It uses radar to locate subglacial water below Thwaites Glacier. It assumes that the source of that water is geothermal activity. More or less the same as Article #1.

Article #3: no finding of increased geothermal activity but an interesting idea about "recycling" of seawater through undersea volcanoes.

Article #4: a rehash of Articles #1 and #2.

Article #5: no finding of increased geothermal activity but discusses evidence of an 100,000 year periodicity.

An ~100 kyr periodicity in fast-spreading seafloor bathymetry and relatively low present-day eruption rates at a time of high sea level and decreasing orbital eccentricity suggest a longer-term sensitivity to sea level and orbital variations associated with Milankovitch cycles.
academiccommons.columbia.edu...:192513/CONTENT/Tolstoy-2015-Geophysical_Research_Letters.pdf

Article #6: no finding of increased geothermal activity, it is about explosive undersea eruptions.

Article #7: no mention of geothermal activity at all.

Article #8: no finding of increased geothermal activity. It is about how geothermal activity affects deep water circulation.

Article #9: no finding of increased geothermal activity. Here is the full article: sam.ucsd.edu...

Article #10: no finding of increased geothermal activity as a cause for the warming of deep northern Pacific waters. It proposes a change in circulation from the south. Here is the full article: stephenschneider.stanford.edu...

Article #11: no finding of increased geothermal activity.

A rough comparison between the Polarstern sections across the Eurasian Basin taken in 1996 and 2007 shows an increase in temperature in the bottom 1500 m by 0.025 ◦ C, which, in a 1500-m-thick layer, corresponds to a heat flux of ∼ 445 m W m − 2 , which is more than 5 times larger than the average geothermal heat flux of 50–100 m W m − 2 (Langseth et al., 1990) (Fig. 22). An additional heat source is then re- quired. The fact that the salinity is increasing towards the bottom cannot be explained by geothermal heating, and slope convection must, at least intermittently, reach the deepest lay- ers.
www.ocean-sci.net...


edit on 5/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

You ever read this 1974 report from the CIA?

Global Cooling would be catastrophic.




posted on May, 11 2017 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


Turn it into a great Semi Empircal data set to show whatever they want to show.
Sure. Fake data, right? Easy to disregard.



The real tidal gauge data shows no such acceleration.
The Battery shows a 25% increase since 1993.


Neah Bay (which is undergoing rebound) shows a 33% increase since 1993.


Freemantle Australia.
1987-1993: 1.4 mm/yr
1993-2010: 5 mm/yr



Even the University of Colorado themselves admit there has been no acceleration of sea level rise.
They do?
 




Global Cooling would be catastrophic.
What's your point?





edit on 5/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 03:52 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


It caps a staggering trend: A six-fold increase in just two decades.
You understand that is not talking about an increase in the amount of CO2 produced, right? It talking about how, in 1992, the estimates were too low. Since you don't provide links to your sources (as required), allow me:

These inflating figures, I hasten to add, don't mean that our planet is suddenly venting more CO2.

Humanity certainly is; but any changes to the volcanic background level would occur over generations, not years. The rise we’re seeing now, therefore, must have been there all along: As scientific progress is widening our perspective, the daunting outline of how little we really know about volcanoes is beginning to loom large.

www.livescience.com...

Even the revised estimated amount is dwarfed by human "contributions."
edit on 5/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Sure. Fake data, right? Easy to disregard.
Hey, it's not me saying it, it's the IPCC.

“Despite the successful calibration and evaluation of semi-empirical models against the observed 20th century sea level record, there is no consensus in the scientific community about their reliability, and consequently low confidence in projections based on them. [13.5.2, 13.5.3, Figure 13.12]”




They do?

Yes they do.

When averaged globally, the record provides an estimate of GMSL with a seasonal mean accuracy of 1–2 mm2. Over the 23-year time series, it shows that GMSL has been rising at a rate of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm yr−1, but with notable inter-decadal variability. Our current best estimate of the rates during the first (1993–2002) and second (2003–2012) decades of the altimeter era are 3.5 and 2.7 mm yr−1, respectively, though important sources of uncertainty persist and raise caution regarding the record’s early years





The Battery shows a 25% increase since 1993.

The link deals with the Tidal Gauge record at The Battery, you may find it interesting.

Link

edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
You really need to source your external quotes. It's actually a rule here.



Hey, it's not me saying it, it's the IPCC.
They are talking about predictive sea level models. That's what the section your quote comes from is about.



Yes they do.
No, they do not say:

there has been no acceleration of sea level rise.
They say that there is inter-decadal variabilitily in the rate. Your source (which I have quoted previously):

There are several theories to explain this variability 11,12, but here we present an additional explanation, with important implications
for anticipated near-future acceleration.
digitalcommons.odu.edu...



There are some issues with measuring the increase since 1993, can you redo it on a 60 year scale?
Based on Watson? Seriously? No, I won't. But please, feel free to do so. You said there was no acceleration shown in the data. I showed you that there is.
www.desmogblog.com...

edit on 5/11/2017 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
The title of the paper itself from the University of Colorado:

Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?
Link to paper


Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.


Therefore, my assertation:



there has been no acceleration of sea level rise.

Is correct.



I showed you that there is.
Your proof is not statistically significant and you know it.


edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
91
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join