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.

 

Bad news for Climate Change.

page: 14
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 15 2018 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: NorthernLites


Look at this paper to start:
That paper is a bit dated (it only looked at the first two decades, we are now in the third decade of satellite data) but you seem to have missed this part of the abstract:

Here, a combined analysis of altimeter data and specially designed climate model simulations shows the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo to likely have masked the acceleration that would have otherwise occurred.


Here's a more recent one which used the entire record of satellite altimeter data.

Using a 25-y time series of precision satellite altimeter data from TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, Jason-2, and Jason-3, we estimate the climate-change–driven acceleration of global mean sea level over the last 25 y to be 0.084 ± 0.025 mm/y2. Coupled with the average climate-change–driven rate of sea level rise over these same 25 y of 2.9 mm/y, simple extrapolation of the quadratic implies global mean sea level could rise 65 ± 12 cm by 2100 compared with 2005, roughly in agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (AR5) model projections.
sealevel.colorado.edu...

edit on 5/15/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 15 2018 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: network dude

Hmmm... Wow... a nation taken over by a basically fascist ideologue with connections to people within the fossil fuel industry, whose policy writers on the subject of energy policy are people who used to literally run oil firms, lead by a man who cares nothing for the environment, and has made his position on that clear by recommending a tonne of cuts to the EPA, as well as other related bodies, has a Meteorological Association, whose findings argue with the larger, and more qualified body that is the IPCC?

WHAT A SHOCKER, UGGGH! I cannot cope with the staggering levels of surprise I am experiencing, at the news that the largest global concentration of science deniers outside of the Middle East, has decided that ITS results are more accurate than those collaborated on by the scientists of all the world.

Hubristic bloody nonsense.

Lets see now, the AMS is from a country which has deliberately abandoned all responsibilities to the Earth beneath its feet, and embraced the most damaging industries instead, but the IPCC is an international collaborative effort, where experts from the whole world get together to share results, compile data, and reach conclusions based on scientific merit, rather than how scared they are that their results might look bad for business and policy makers...

Yeah, I don't give a God damn what anything that has the word "American" on it thinks anymore. The chances that these results were gleaned from an honest and unfettered scientific pursuit lay between slim and none, precisely because of the nature of the leadership of the nation, and the importance oil companies play in funding all manner of things in America. Its results on everything can no longer be trusted.

See America, think lies. That way, you only get nice surprises.

YO
I get the anger. ATS is turning into a Trump dumb down site.........

On the bright side my local pub (Blantyre) had some US tourists (clearly way way way off the beaten track) who had nothing nice to say about Trump. So there is hope.



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

65 centimeter sea level rise by 2100?

Does this mean that the statue of liberty will still be above water?


Satellite data has a lot of corrections that must be taken into account.

The tidal gauge network does not indicate an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise on a multidecadal time frame.

sealevel.colorado.edu...



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   
a reply to: NorthernLites




Satellite data has a lot of corrections that must be taken into account.
Then why did you cite a study based upon it? But what corrections are you referring to?


The tidal gauge network does not indicate an acceleration in the rate of sea level rise on a multidecadal time frame.
Tide gauges are the ones that require corrections for things like winds and currents, as well as the uplift and subsidence of the land on which they are located. But they do help in validating satellite data.

“The tide gauge measurements are essential for determining the uncertainty in the global mean sea level acceleration estimate,” said co-author Gary Mitchum, University of South Florida College of Marine Science. “They provide the only assessments of the satellite instruments from the ground.” Others have used tide gauge data to measure sea level acceleration, but scientists have struggled to pull out other important details from tide-gauge data, such as changes in the last couple of decades due to more active ice sheet melt.
www.nasa.gov...



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Uncertainties



One of many papers on the subject

What has been measured this century is a constant temperature of the oceans at a depth of 0-2000 m ranging from 60N to 60S [6], plus a globally increasing sea ice extent, with the expansion in Antarctica more than compensating the shrinking in the Arctic [7]. In addition, all the long-term tide gauges of the world of good quality and sufficient length have demonstrated the absence of traces of any acceleration [3, 13-16].

The latest average relative rate of rise of sea levels from a compilation of 170 worldwide tide gauges of record length exceeding 60 years is +0.43 mm/year (without any component of acceleration). The satellite altimetry does not provide accurate computations of the vertical velocity of “fixed” GPS domes on land. Therefore, it is hard to believe that the satellite may provide an accurate picture of the continuously oscillating sea surface. Rather than oscillating about a 3 mm/year slope, the GMSL should is likely be close to a flat zero mm/year slope noisy distribution.



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   
a reply to: NorthernLites

Uncertainties
I tried to find the paper on which those Powerpoint slides were based because without narration it's not clear what exactly is being presented. It seems to be a comparison different models used to produce a global mean. It seems that the way outlier were handled could be problematic. I couldn't find a paper specific to that presentation but I did find this, by the same authors.

Lastly, to continuously answer user needs, we will produce by the end of 2016 a new, improved sea level time series covericovering the 1993–2015 period.
eprints.soton.ac.uk...
Here's that time series (in blue). It says the same thing that the others did, and do.

The global mean sea level has increased by about 3 mm/yr on average but the black curve (a quadratic function fitted to the data) shows clear acceleration over the recent years. The objective of the ESA Sea Level Climate Change Initiative project is to provide stable, long-term satellite-based Sea Level products for climate applications.

www.esa-sealevel-cci.org...

Are you going to reject the results now when you cited them before?
 



One of many papers on the subject

That's an odd journal for a credible scientist to publish in.

Pattern Recognition in Physics was an open-access journal originally published by Copernicus Publications which was established in March 2013 and terminated in January 2014. The editors-in-chief were Sid-Ali Ouadfeul (Algerian Petroleum Institute) and Nils-Axel Mörner, the latter of whom is a well-known global warming skeptic.[1] Copernicus ceased its publication due to concerns over the publications views towards the scientific consensus of global climate change and the method of peer review. In March 2014 Ouadfeul reopened the journal, "run on private founding" [sic] [2]

en.wikipedia.org...

Maybe Parker (sometimes known as Alberto Boretti) is not a reliable source and can't find a real journal to accept his work. I'll stick with real scientists, like those you first cited.
tamino.wordpress.com...


edit on 5/15/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2018 @ 07:57 PM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


And what are you folks going to achieve with that compartmentalisation?

Apparently nothing.

I responded to a post that tried to say that somehow melting sea ice would make a substantial difference in sea level. It will not. Then you seemed to not believe me, because for some strange reason you want me to look at models instead of data, or vice versa... So I clarified what I was responding to.

Now if you want to debate sea level change, it's pure bull-hockey. If sea level rises, it rises everywhere, not just where climatologists want it to. It is not rising everywhere; it is claimed to be rising in selected areas, most of which have a dense population. In those areas the land is sinking under the weight of the city on top of it, not the sea level rising.

Of course, you may want to talk about how many millimeters it has risen in the last decade... I simply don't care. That is not affecting anyone adversely, and likely will not. I'm talking about substantive sea level rise that would cause the shore to move inland enough to overrun present beaches. That is simply not happening everywhere, no matter how fast you run with those goal posts.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




I'm talking about substantive sea level rise that would cause the shore to move inland enough to overrun present beaches. That is simply not happening everywhere, no matter how fast you run with those goal posts.


The beauty of local relative sea level trends right there.


Satellite data indicates that since 1992, there has been an average rise of about 3 millimeters per year in global sea level. That may not sound like much, but it adds up quickly. And remember – sea level rise isn’t uniform across the globe. For instance, tide gauge measurements show that sea level is rising almost 10 mm/yr in Louisiana because the land is sinking. In other coastal areas, sea level trends are falling. For example, in southeast Alaska, local sea level trends are falling up to 17 mm/yr because the land is rising.

oceantoday.noaa.gov...

So there's that. Again.
Anyhow. Here's a little overview with more recent data for you guys to giggle away:


Global mean sea level in 2016 was the highest yearly average since measurements started in the late 19th century; it was about 20 cm higher than at the beginning of the 20th century.
Estimates for the average rate of global sea level rise over the 20th century range from 1.2 to 1.7 mm/year, with significant decadal variation. The rate of sea level rise since 1993, when satellite measurements became available, has been significantly higher, at around 3 mm/year.
Evidence showing the predominant role of anthropogenic climate change in observed global mean sea level rise and the acceleration of sea level rise during recent decades has strengthened since the publication of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5).
All coastal regions in Europe have experienced an increase in absolute sea level, but with significant regional variation. Most coastal regions have also experienced an increase in sea level relative to land, with the exception of the northern Baltic Sea and the northern Atlantic coast, which are experiencing considerable land rise as a consequence of post-glacial rebound.
Extreme high coastal water levels have increased at most locations along the European coastline. This increase appears to be predominantly due to increases in mean local sea level rather than to changes in storm activity.
Global mean sea level rise during the 21st century will very likely occur at a higher rate than during the period 1971–2010. Process-based models considered in the IPCC AR5 project a rise in sea level over the 21st century (2100 vs. 1986–2005 baseline) that is likely (i.e. 66 % probability) in the range of 0.28–0.61 m for a low emissions scenario (RCP2.6) and 0.52–0.98 m for a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5). However, substantially higher values of sea level rise cannot be ruled out. Several recent model-based studies, expert assessments and national assessments have suggested an upper bound for 21st century global mean sea level rise in the range of 1.5–2.5 m.
A recent study extending the IPCC AR5 projections estimates global sea level rise by 2300 to be in the range of 0.8–1.4 m for a low emissions scenario (RCP2.6) and 3.4–6.8 m for a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5). These values would rise substantially if the largest estimates of sea level contributions from Antarctica over the coming centuries were included.
The rise in sea level relative to land along most European coasts is projected to be similar to the global average, with the exception of the northern Baltic Sea and the northern Atlantic coast, which are experiencing considerable land rise as a consequence of post-glacial rebound.
Projected increases in extreme high coastal water levels are likely to mostly be the result of increases in local relative mean sea level in most locations. However, several recent studies suggest that increases in the meteorologically driven surge component could also play a substantial role, in particular along the northern European coastline.
All available studies project that the damages from coastal floods in Europe would increase many-fold in the absence of adaptation, whereby the specific projections depend on the assumptions of the particular study.

www.eea.europa.eu...

Those pesky Europeans, eh?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion


For instance, tide gauge measurements show that sea level is rising almost 10 mm/yr in Louisiana because the land is sinking.

That right there says you are referencing local observations of land subsidence, not actual sea level rise.

You might want to actually try to understand your own 'supporting evidence.' It's saying the same thing I am.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

I'm confused. What is bad news about predictions not being as extreme as originally predicted? Isn't that good news? Oh WAIT! You are just making a political argument to score partisan points.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 09:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sea levels don't rise uniformly due to tidal forces.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They rise proportionally to the applied tidal forces.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck



You might want to actually try to understand your own 'supporting evidence.' It's saying the same thing I am.


And where did you say "Satellite data indicates that since 1992, there has been an average rise of about 3 millimeters per year in global sea level?"



You might want to actually try to understand your own 'supporting evidence.' It's saying the same thing I am.


I'm open for advice once you read whole paragraphs, and stop with the cherrypicking of rather marginal sidekicks in a much bigger picture. How's that?



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:30 AM
link   
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Read... repeat what you read... read what you repeated... repeat what you read... must be nice.

I have to do it a little different... read... comprehend... analyze... understand... hypothesize... read... comprehend...

Much more complicated. But the results work. I guess it all depends on the goal.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




They rise proportionally to the applied tidal forces.

Not really. Compare the tides of the Bay of Fundy to those of Miami Beach.

Rising sea levels do not affect all areas evenly. The oceans are not like a bathtub, "sea level" is not flat. Prevailing winds and currents, local gravitational fields, the Earth's rotation, and water temperature all play roles.
edit on 5/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

F=ma.

TheRedneck



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. The formula for tidal force is a bit more complex than that though.
And gravity from the Sun and Moon is not the only thing that affects tides, or sea levels.

Witness the Bay of Fundy in comparison to Miami Beach.

edit on 5/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 11:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: TheRedneck

Yes. The formula for tidal force is a bit more complex than that though.
And gravity from the Sun and Moon is not the only thing that affects tides, or sea levels.

Witness the Bay of Fundy in comparison to Miami Beach.


Wouldn't all those factors be " applied tidal forces" ? If you have to list any and all factors involved, you seem to have missed them as well. But then, as long as those pesky nits are dealt with.



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 12:49 PM
link   
a reply to: network dude


Wouldn't all those factors be " applied tidal forces" ?
No. Tidal forces are the result of gravity gradients, the change in gravitational attraction with distance.
hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...



posted on May, 16 2018 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I live in the Maryland, USA/Chesapeake Bay region, and it is one of the "main battleground states in battling climate change by urging climate resilience on its own people."

Some effects of climate change --- Rising seas, warming water temperatures and prolonged periods of extreme weather --- are already being observed on the bay.

And to think that Trump's budget plan wanted to cut Chesapeake Bay Funding by 90 percent --- but fortunately --- I believe the proposal was defeated by Congress.

www.chesapeakebay.net...




top topics



 
41
<< 11  12  13    15  16 >>

log in

join