Send a Message
to Steve Case

Comments

3,022

Joined

Apr 24, 2010

Steve Case Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

IB DaMann seems to have a one trick pony that is an answer for everything.  (Jan 8, 2015 | post #3278)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

I'm not going to attempt to answer your questions. Satellites aren't the only measure of sea level rise. Tide gauge data available at the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) http://www.psmsl.o rg/data/obtaining/ certainly tell us that sea level it rising. But it's not rising as fast as the satellites say. Some places like the U.S. West coast show almost no sea level rise, and the East coast has a problem. A problem that has nothing to do with climate.  (Jan 8, 2015 | post #3271)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Here's a link to the HockeySchtick that explains my view of what has been upjusted by the folks who run Colorado University's Sea Level Research Group: http://hockeyschti ck.blogspot.com/20 13/10/satellite-se a-level-data-has-b een.html Here's a graphic of what that looks like: http://oi59.tinypi c.com/24e8482.jpg  (Jan 8, 2015 | post #3269)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

After a very very short search I don't find anything about margin of error or CU's web site. Doesn't mean they don't say. So, something for you to do. Here's their web site: http://sealevel.co lorado.edu/ Here's the link [Raw data (ASCII)] to the data I use: http://sealevel.co lorado.edu/files/2 014_rel5/sl_ns_glo bal.txt  (Jan 8, 2015 | post #3268)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

Fat chanceUm, in a word no. I do a regular search on sea level in the news, and there are people going around to the various seaside communities around the world doing their level best to scare the bejusus out of the locals. When there's a comment section I tell 'em what the tide gauges and satellites say. Usually my comments are posted but often enough they are moderated into the trash binAnd if you read through the FAQs on Colorado University's web site they refer to it as a speed bump on the way to rising seas. Or was it Pot Hole? Either way, an interesting choice of words, says a lot about their mind sat and what they are really all about.  (Jan 8, 2015 | post #3267)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

That's a lie. Colorado University's Sea Level Reserch Group has 22 years of data going back to 1992. The first 11 years (1992-2003) has a rate of 3.5 mm/yr and since 2004 the rate has dropped to 2.9 mm/yr.  (Jan 7, 2015 | post #3262)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

There's a term for it, it's called "Upjusting "  (Jan 7, 2015 | post #3261)

Global Warming

The anthropogenic global climate warming is an incorrect ...

I'm not ignoring it, CO2's Climate Sensitivity includes the feedbacks. That's root of the argument. The modelers say CO2 runs the temperature up 3°C or more for a doubling in concentrationYes, generally said to be anywhere from 30 - 70% (Wikipedia ArticleAs I said above, the feed backs are included in the often quoted 3°C or more for Climate Sensitivity included in the models.  (Dec 15, 2014 | post #34)

Global Warming

The anthropogenic global climate warming is an incorrect ...

Carbon dioxide is commonly said to have a Climate Sensitivity of 3°C or more. Climate sensitivity is logarithmic, meaning there is a fixed amount of warming associated with any doubling of CO2. If CO2 doubles from 100 ppm to 200 ppm, the temperature would go up 3°C if it doubles from 200 pp to 400 ppm, again temperature would go up 3°C and so on. The green House Effect is commonly said to warm the Earth 33°C warmer than it otherwise would be, and CO2 is said to contribute to that warming anywhere from 9% to 26%. Let's look at the 26% figure, and at the same time consider the doubling nature of CO2's Climate Sensitivity. 26% of 33°C is about 8.6°C. That means, [8.6°C ÷ 3°C = 2.87] because it's logarithmic there could have only been about three doublings back to 100 ppm. We know that Green House Gas is effective at concentrations lower than 100 ppm. For example, Methane, at only 2 ppm is said to be many times more powerful than CO2 for the simple reason it doesn't take much to double its concentration. If Methane is effective at 2 ppm than wouldn't CO2 also be? CO2's current concentration of 400 ppm represents over 7 doublings since 2 ppm. Given that CO2's share of the Green House Effect is about 8.6°C the following calculation should tell us what its climate sensitivity really is: [8.6°C ÷ 8 doublings = 1.2°C per doubling of CO2] A climate sensitivity of 1.2°C per doubling is exactly what Dr. James Hansen says in Chapter 8 of the IPCC's AR4 Assessment report: The climate response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 with no feedbacks operating would be around 1.2°C of warming. http://www.ipcc.ch /publications_and_ data/ar4/wg1/en/ch 8s8-6-2-3.html In other words, basic arithmetic tells us CO2's Climate Sensitivity can be no more than about 1.2°C.  (Dec 15, 2014 | post #30)

Global Warming

Professor: 'Terminate Industrial Civilization' To Save Ea...

So we have to destroy the planet to save it. Has familiar ring to it.  (Oct 23, 2014 | post #2)

Global Warming

Chicago's Coldest Winter & Global Warming

First chuckle of the day  (Apr 4, 2014 | post #12)

Global Warming

Chicago's Coldest Winter & Global Warming

And as such, global temperatures have been flat for over a decadeSays you, the numbers say otherwise. Here's the link to HADCRUT4 global Combined land [CRUTEM4] and marine sea surface temperature (SST): http://www.cru.uea .ac.uk/cru/data/te mperature/HadCRUT4 -gl.dat Load that into Excel as follows: (It takes a little bit to get it reformatted)      |    A    |   B   |                  C                  |   1  | YYYY.xx |   DATA | Formula                             | ... 1801 | 2001.00 | 0 .364 | -0.00047797 9                       | ... 1957 | 2014.00 | 0.507 | =SLOPE(B1956:B$195 8,A1956:A$1958) | 1958 | 2014.08 | 0.299 | =SLOPE(B1957:B$195 8,A1957:A$1958) | Copy the formula in cell [C1958] and paste it on up the column. The earliest you find a negative value is cell [C1801] and so that means the temperature has been essentially flat since January 2001. You can do whatever you like, stand on your head and spit wooden nickles if you want to, but it won't change the facts. Other data sets GISS, UAH etc. give different results, but they're all over a decade.  (Apr 3, 2014 | post #4)

Global Warming

Chicago's Coldest Winter & Global Warming

That's right, Global warming must be seen in terms of global temperature, not anecdotal local deviations. And as such, global temperatures have been flat for over a decade. If a trend appears again, it's up for grabs whether it will be increasing or decreasing temperatures. In any case, global temperatures are not on course with the prognostications from the usual crowd. .  (Apr 3, 2014 | post #2)

Global Warming

Sea level rise: It's worse than we thought

A joke? An' here I thought it was fer real. You got me on that one you clever dog  (Mar 15, 2014 | post #3218)

Q & A with Steve Case

Hometown:

Milwaukee, WI USA

I Belong To:

No man