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: 22
94
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2017 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


The position that data is not statistically significant is actually superseded by the reliability of the data.

So you feel this data that you hold to is irrefutable?




posted on May, 11 2017 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Compared to the 20th century, the rate has increased. Your claim is that it has not.

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



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 05:19 PM
link   
nvm site is back online now.
edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


An example of the "Measurement Problem," in history....





posted on May, 11 2017 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Compared to the 20th century, the rate has increased. Your claim is that it has not.
If you took a 30y trend ending in 2005 and a 30y trend ending in 1975 you would presumably conclude “acceleration”. All these linear “trends” are a mugs game. Anyone can click “fit trend” in Excel. That is why it is so popular.

That gives the false impression that it mean something. It doesn’t.



I can't get past the paywall on this one...

Link


Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records


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



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Then there is this.

Link

We estimate that since the 1960s groundwater abstraction has more than doubled (from 312 ± 37 to 734 ± 84 km3 a-1) resulting in an increase in groundwater depletion of from 126 ± 32 to 283 ± 40 km3 a-1. Most of the groundwater released from storage due to groundwater depletion will end up in the ocean, partly by runoff and, as most of the groundwater use is for irrigation purposes, predominantly through evaporation and then precipitation…We estimate the contribution of groundwater depletion to sea level rise to be 0.8 (±0.1) mm a-1, which is 25 (±3) % of the current rate of sea level rise of 3.1 mm a-1… and the same order of magnitude as the contribution from glaciers and ice caps.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee
Houston and Dean's selection of 1930 as a starting point seems to be problematic.

The figure shows a pronounced minimum in acceleration values for starting years around 1930. Houston and Dean (2011) admit that they deliberately selected this starting year because of this feature: ‘‘Since the worldwide data of Church and White (2006)…appear to have a linear rise since around 1930, we analyzed the period 1930 to 2010.’’ Positive acceleration is found for both earlier and later starting years, as Figure 1 here shows.

In other words, they selected a starting point which happened to provide the lowest rate of acceleration.





Figure 1 also answers the concluding question posed by Houston and Dean, cited on the opening paragraph here. The semi-empirical models predict and thus explain the acceleration minimum around 1930 as a consequence of the plateau in the global temperature record in the middle of the twentieth century. Since global temperature did not rise from about 1940 to about 1980, one cannot expect any significant acceleration of sea-level rise over this period.

In other words, there was no warming for 60% of the period covered by Houston and Dean.



www.pik-potsdam.de...

 



Then there is this.
So, now you agree that there has been an acceleration in sea level rise? Make up your mind.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage


So, now you agree that there has been an acceleration in sea level rise? Make up your mind.
The tidal Gauge network shows no statistically significant rate of increase.

Thats my position and until it does, I'm of that mind.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

From your source:

The satellite altimeter record shows a slight deceleration since 1993, but this time interval is far too short to draw any conclusions.



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. I know. I pointed that out here:

Actually, tide gauge data shows a greater rate of change than the satellite data does.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that is not the same as saying there has been a deceleration since 1930.


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



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Here's the rebuttal by Houston and Dean to the criticism in the paper you linked.
Link

The important conclusion of our study is not that the data sets we analyze display small sea-level decelerations, but that accelerations, whether negative or positive (we reference studies that found small positive accelerations), are quite small. To reach the multimeter levels projected for 2100 by RV requires large positive accelerations that are one to two orders of magnitude greater than those yet observed in sea-level data.


But Douglas (1992) shows, e.g., that 30–40-year record lengths (starting times 1960 and 1970 in Figure 1) show positive and negative accelerations 10–20 times larger than accelerations determined from 80-year records. Yet RV criticize our analysis of 80-year records from 1930 to 2010 as being too short. The fact is that decadal fluctuations begin to dominate records shorterthan about 60 years, and accelerations become increasingly meaningless for starting years in Figure 1 greater than about 1940. Moreover, positive accelerations peak some time after the starting time of 1970 and eventually plunge to very large negative values. In summary, RV compare their model results to meaningless data after the starting year of about 1940 and are selective in only showing data with positive accelerations after 1940





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



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: D8Tee

Yes. I know. I pointed that out here:

Actually, tide gauge data shows a greater rate of change than the satellite data does.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But that is not the same as saying there has been a deceleration since 1930.


And as I have pointed out, your analysis is meaningless, the time scale is too short.

Good job on the graph, but clicking fit trend in Excel does not change that your data set is too short to be statistically significant.
edit on 11-5-2017 by D8Tee because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee


www.youtube.com...



edit on 11-5-2017 by Kashai because: Content edit



posted on May, 11 2017 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Found a way around the paywall for the Dean and Houston if you want to have a look.
Link



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 03:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

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.


Really?... Let's see. First article.


...
The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition that influences the melting, flow, and mass
balance of ice sheets, but measurements of this parameter are difficult to make in ice-covered regions. We re-
port the first direct measurement of geothermal heat flux into the base of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS),
below Subglacial Lake Whillans, determined from the thermal gradient and the thermal conductivity of sedi-
ment under the lake. The heat flux at this site is 285 ± 80 mW/m^2, significantly higher than the continental and
regional averages estimated for this site
using regional geophysical and glaciological models. Independent temperature measurements in the ice indicate an upward heat flux through the WAIS of 105 ± 13 mW/m^2. The difference between these heat flux values could contribute to basal melting and/or be advected from Subglacial Lake Whillans by flowing water. The high geothermal heat flux may help to explain why ice streams and subglacial lakes are so abundant and dynamic in this region.
...


Now let's see Phage trying to twist what the articles actually say...Oh wait...he/she already did.


originally posted by: Phage
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.


Second article.


Significance

Thwaites Glacier is one of the West Antarctica's most prominent, rapidly evolving, and potentially unstable contributors to global sea level rise. Uncertainty in the amount and spatial pattern of geothermal flux and melting beneath this glacier is a major limitation in predicting its future behavior and sea level contribution. In this paper, a combination of radar sounding and subglacial water routing is used to show that large areas at the base of Thwaites Glacier are actively melting in response to geothermal flux consistent with rift-associated magma migration and volcanism. This supports the hypothesis that heterogeneous geothermal flux and local magmatic processes could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
...

www.pnas.org...



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


I posted the third article as a learning tool , but it seems you didn't learn much.


originally posted by: Phage
Article #4: a rehash of Articles #1 and #2.


Article 4 is another study which found what you Phage claim is not occurring...

It seems you didn't even understand the first sentence.


Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat, researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at The University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) report in the current edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
...

news.utexas.edu...


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


That article states.


...
Pulsing of seafloor volcanic activity may feed back into climate cycles, possibly contributing to glacial/interglacial cycles, the abrupt end of ice ages, and dominance of the 100 kyr cycle.
...

advances.sciencemag.org...

The hypothesis mentioned in the above article is corroborated by the other research studies and not the claims you are making.



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


It is also evidence that large volcanic eruptions do occur at depths which were previously though not to have such eruptions due to the increase pressure.


originally posted by: Phage
Article #7: no mention of geothermal activity at all.


Obviously you missed the part in which they state changes in the Arctic were not trends caused by global warming.


...

"Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming," said Morison.

www.eurekalert.org...


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


That study concludes.


...
Conclusions
Numerical experiments with a coarse resolution ocean-sea ice model indicate that geothermal heat fluxes are a non negligable forcing of the ocean circulation, substantially strengthening the AABW and NADW overturning cells.
...

nora.nerc.ac.uk...



originally posted by: Phage
Article #9: no finding of increased geothermal activity.
...



...
Recent deep CTD-O 2 measurements in the abyssal North Pacific along 175°W, 152°W, and 47°N indicate large-scale changes in the O-S characteristics in the deepest kilometer of the water column. Geothermal heat flux from the abyssal sediments can be invoked as the agent for causing large-scale modification of abyssal temperatures (but not salinities) in the subarctic Pacific Ocean. East-west and north-south thermal age differences of about 100 years are inferred using a spatially uniform geothermal heat flux of 5 x 10 -2 WrmW m -2.

adsabs.harvard.edu...



originally posted by: Phage
Article #10: no finding of increased geothermal activity as a cause for the warming of deep northern Pacific waters.
...


Funny, because I even put in bold the following part.


...
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...

But here you are claiming that it has nothing to do with geothermal heating when the article states the fact that these deep "water masses have long been insulated from heat exchange with the atmosphere." The increase in temperatures so deep in the ocean can only come from geothermal heating, like other studies/articles mention.

edit on 12-5-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:30 PM
link   


No, Volcanoes Are Not the Primary Cause For the Melting Ice Caps

By Kayla Ruble
June 11, 2014 | 6:25 pm
Climate change skeptics are using a new study about geothermal heating under the world’s ice caps to claim that volcanoes are the real cause of glacial melting, not global warming.

The study was conducted by researchers at the Institute for Geophysics at the University of Texas at Austin (UTIG) and published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It analyzes geothermal heat below the glaciers in West Antarctica and acknowledges that these sources — which include magma movement and volcanic activity — do contribute to some ice cap melting.

Yet, according to the researchers behind the study and other experts in the field, these findings do not actually provide new insight into why the ice is melting.

“It is true that there are active volcanoes in West Antarctica, and so there may have been some local changes, but in most cases, at most times, volcanoes are not erupting under the ice,” Richard Alley, a geologist at Penn State, told VICE News. “This paper is exciting for modelers and geologists who focus on Antarctica, but it doesn’t tell you anything about why the ice is now thinning.”


news.vice.com...



Measuring geothermal activity under the ice sheet is so difficult that researchers usually just enter one, uniform estimate for the contributions of geothermal heat to melting, Schroeder said.


You have a measurement problem and its showing.


edit on 12-5-2017 by Kashai because: Added content



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

There are some interesting findings in those papers, thanks for the effort you put in.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 05:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Justoneman


Do you know how many papers supporting AGW where published in the same time frame..



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: purplemer
a reply to: Justoneman


Do you know how many papers supporting AGW where published in the same time frame..


I don't know.

How many?

And how many of them say that humans are the primary driver of the climate change?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee





new topics

top topics



 
94
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join