NASA’s top temperature expert says Antarctic temperatures have decreased significantly.
NASA’s top ice expert says that Antarctic land ice is increasing.
NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses | NASA
NASA says that Antarctic sea ice is increasing to record levels.
Antarctica is cooling and the ice is expanding.
Scientists respond to this by saying that global warming threatens penguins.
Climate science is the first fully fact-free science.
Zwally’s Antarctic estimate is just one study out of literally dozens in the past several years….it’s also the only one showing mass increase. But of course skeptics must believe it’s the only valid estimate…cherrypicking and cognitive bias anyone?
That’s the thing with real science, a new paper should always give a more enlightened view. Its called REALITY..
You should try it sometime when you can get off whatever you are habitually taking.
Again, you are totally unable to present any contrary evidence, just providing yet another EMPTY rant.
Well, often it doesn’t. Better to listen to the scientistS, not just a single one.
Listen to me turd brain. Don’t listen to any scientists, listen to me.
1. Antarctica has 22,000,000 gigatons of ice
2. The oceans hold 1,350,000,000 gigatons of water
3. If you wonder whether is matters whether Antarctica gains 80 gigatons a year or loses 100 gigatons a year, read points 1 and 2 again.
4. Stop being an idiot.
“4. Stop being an idiot.”
I hope you’re not holding your breath.
catweazle666 sez: “I hope you’re not holding your breath.”
Well, that’s one way to stop being an idiot. 😉
Ignore the EVIDENCE all you like.. it only makes you more of a FOOL.
Southern sea temps are dropping
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/14southern.png
South pole temperatures aren’t going anywhere.
https://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/zero-trend-oct-2015-s-polar.jpg
You have to have a chuckle at Zwally, though..
He is scientist enough to present the data and conclusion as it REALLY IS.. but he does do everything he can to spin the AGW farce. Must have been very difficult for him. 😉
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
Morgan Wright says: 1. Antarctica has 22,000,000 gigatons of ice
Not to nitpick, but – Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million and Greenland has 2.5 million of those KM^3.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml
As posted before with 112 billion –
112 billion tons of ice per year sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million tons of the stuff.
112/28,000,000 = 0.000004. If the total measurement was in kilometers, you would be measuring the change as 0.4 mm. Are they really that accurate?
And to go from the Ice to Sea Water, “Where’s the Energy?”
4.13 x 10^17 joules / KM^3. What does that number represent? That is the energy it takes to convert one cubic kilometer of continental ice from -30 °C to water at 4 °C – See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/03/el-nino-strengthens-the-pause-lengthens/#comment-1953030
from http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c07/e2-02-03-02.pdf
Evaporation of water from the surface of the World Ocean and land of the planet is the main process providing water vapor transport to the atmosphere. Evaporation of water takes much heat (1.26 x 10^24 joules), or about 25% of all the energy recieved at the Earth’s surface.
1.26 E+24 * 4 = 5.04 E+24 => 5.04 e+24 / 4.13 E+17 joules/Km^3 = 1.22 E+07 Km^3 of ice per year.
30,000,000 Km^3 of Ice / 12,200,000 Km^/year (with all the solar power directed to melting ice) = 2.46 years.
Of course everything else would freeze up, so the levels would not change that much.
Not to nitpick, but:
“As posted before with 112 billion –
112 billion tons of ice per year sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million tons of the stuff. ”
You meant 26 to 30 million gigatons, not tons. And I always heard 22 million but not worth arguing over.
Tom Karl’s temperature estimate is just one out of literally dozens in the past several years…it’s also the only one that fails to show a leveling off of temperatures. But of course alarmists must believe it’s the only valid estimate…cherrypicking and cognitive bias anyone?
“Zwally’s Antarctic estimate is just one study out of literally dozens in the past several years”
Actually it is a re-analysis of several datasets from various satellite databases going back a number of years and using the latest technology and analytical techniques.
You really haven’t the first clue what you’re wittering about, have you?
Thank you, Morgan Wright. We are a water planet. What is the percentage? 70% ? Most of that water is very cold, I believe. Do any of you have the numbers?
Barbara –
Water covers 73 percent of the earth
Oceans cover 70 percent of the earth
Land covers 30 percent of the earth
Yes the extra 3 percent is that hard white stuff that you don’t have to be Jesus to walk on, but it is still water. USGS states “Almost 10 percent of the world’s land mass is currently covered with glaciers.”
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthglacier.html
The glaciers that have accelerated in the Amundsen Sea sector hold a meter or two of sea-level rise in them..and as they are on a retrograde bed once you push them far enough they will go all the way and won’t recover. This is not a problem this century though.
You mean like Guam don’t you.
Sorry, the link didn’t get there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs23CjIWMgA
Those glaciers have been melting for 10,000 years when the ice age ended. The ocean rose so much that the bottoms of those glaciers are below sea level, so they are melting. It has NOTHING to do with humans.
Sorry, I don’t usually yell with caps, but this guy made me mad.
You mean they will melt just like they have since the interglacial started. The same interglacial that has not yet ended. Are you hoping for the end of the interglacial?
Ice melts dumbass.
Seems more non-linear. The interglacial is close to 10000 years old but Larsen B and friends decided to collapse now, after having been stable for the whole interglacial so far, coincidence?
Amundsen Sea sector could also have gone unstable during the last 10000 years but didn’t…it seems to be happening only now. Funny stuff, I though the Earth was cooling towards the next ice-age already…
Your delusions are not “rigorous science”.
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effectual, and then quantify them all.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Remember, you are the party requiring peer review!
Remember this from waaaay back?
cfgjd says:
December 9, 2015 at 3:27 pm
Submit to a Journal or it does not exist…simple rule.
So refutation of natural variability “does not exist”! 😆
“Seems more non-linear. The interglacial is close to 10000 years old but Larsen B and friends decided to collapse now, after having been stable for the whole interglacial so far, coincidence? ”
I looked up stupid in the dictionary and there was a picture of you claiming that ice in Antarctica has been stable for the whole interglacial.
“I thought the Earth was cooling towards the next ice-age already…”
Yep, and this is probably the ONLY thing you have ever got correct on this forum.
http://www.plateclimatology.com/how-geologic-forces-are-melting-the-antarctic-larsen-b-ice-shelf/
I think someone needs a reality check….
https://suyts.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/image69.png
But that’s before any TOBS adjustments …
I posted on WUWT about resilient Emperor Penguins and had two published experts email me in agreement, but asking for strict confidence. http://landscapesandcycles.net/resilient-emperor-penguin.html
They confessed that editors try to pressure them to slant their conclusions into a climate change framework.
Oh dear, another nail in the Antarctic AGW coffin !!
Surely this zombie has to die a natural death soon.
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/giant-blob-of-superheated-rock-under-west-antarctica/
OMG! It’s worse than we thought! Man made CO2 has made the ice so hot, that the ice is now melting the rock beneath!
Sorry, you will have to talk to Trenberth about that.
Maybe that’s where his missing heat went.
Oh that’s rilly sophisticated analysis, how come joannenova hasn’t published it anywhere? BTW how come the “Solar Notch Theory” has been silently buried…unpublishable “results” is my best guess…
Because science publications are public funded and the government, as far as climate science is concerned, is corrupt. But you already know that because you are part of the corruption.
If it hasn’t been published.. how do you know about it?
Again you show just how ignorant and stupid you are.
It has received FAR MORE PEER REVIEW than most papers in climate science would ever receive.
the above was about Dr Evan’s notch theory…
And guess what, because the original notch theory had a few slight issues, bought to notice by the WIDE-RANGING PEER REVIEW, a much more robust notch based theory is now in the pipeline.
That is how science works, in case you didn’t know.
And the study HAS been peer-reviewed
A quote that you can look for yourself……
“†This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2015JB012455”
Again, your moronic ignorance precedes you…… you wear it as a badge.
the above was about the paper linked at JoNova’s
“While most of the Earth warmed rapidly”…they just couldn’t resist sticking that in, but I can see no justification for it, in the last two decades of the satellite temperature record of the Earth. Still they do now admit that the ice is building up in Antarctica, despite “While most of the Earth warmed rapidly”….whatever that means.
It means the oceans are warming up. Please do not bring up SST as that is not the same thing.
Exactly how much warming, and where? Hmmm?
Explain to us, dear cfgjd, how CO2 warms the ocean. Pray tell.
Hint: it doesn’t
Greenhouse-gases alter the energy exchange between Earth and space including the Sun. Study some science while you still can.
“Greenhouse-gases alter the energy exchange between Earth and space including the Sun. ”
Please provide one paper that proves CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.
Or will you again, just present ZERO EVIDENCE for the AGW farce.
Greenhouse gases are just another conduit for cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere.
If you knew any basic science, you would know this.
But you have proven time and time again that you are a base-level ignorant wacko.
And they warm the depths of the oceans with affecting SST’s..
Come on cfool.. explain how that works.. or run and hide again.
“Greenhouse-gases alter the energy exchange between Earth and space including the Sun…”
That’s a bullshit answer. The only way CO2 can warm the ocean is if it warms the atmosphere first, which is isn’t doing.
And of course CO2 does not emit below about 15km..
The CO2 warming the atmosphere line, is a total and absolute joke.
http://s19.postimg.org/6bv57dpo3/stratospheric_cooling.jpg
Reblogged this on Climatism.
Added CO2 has already changed Earth’s spectra measured from space. That is irrefutable direct evidence that added CO2 is warming the planet:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html
Later studies have corroborated this with other satellite datasets.
More direct empirical evidence of CO2 causing warming:
http://proceedings.spiedigitallibrary.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=849920
I love paywall protected science papers the best. I’d ask you what they say, but I’m sure your subscription ran out when your check bounced.
Oh dear , it seems OLWR has been increasing…. no trapped energy there. !
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg
John Daly RIPS APART the Harries paper…
http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm
I particularly like this update section
“The following `erratum’ notice appeared in Nature on 26th April on the last page of the `letters to Nature’ section 5 weeks after this critique was published on this site on 19th March.
“Erratum: Increase in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997
JOHN E. HARRIES, HELEN E. BRINDLEY, PRETTY J. SAGOO & RICHARD J. BANTGES
Nature 410, 355; 2001
In Fig. 1a of this paper, the labels for the two curves were inadvertently switched. The grey curve represents IMG and the black curve represents IRIS.”
The comparison given above between the Guam plot and the IRIS plot is no longer valid, given this erratum notice. There is no indication in the notice as to who was responsible for the accidental switching of labels, particularly relevant if it was the original authors. If this was indeed the case, it raises questions as to what other inaccuracies may exist in the paper, and why the peer reviewers failed to detect the error. Had they discovered the mismatch described above, that alone would have raised the alarm bells that a key mistake had been made. – JD”
So funny !!! 🙂
thanks again, cfool, for providing us with the farcical comedy.
Again.. SHODDY peer-review in climate non-science……
….. having to be corrected by people of far greater intellect.
John Daly does not even understand averaging so it will not surprise me when you tell me his “rebuttal” is unpublishable bullshit.
John Daly understood more about everything than you will understand even about how to butter bread.
You have proven time and again that you are an incompetent clown.
You have absolutely NOTHING to back up your claim, and your rancid posts prove it.
And seriously.. is that insipid childlike ADD rant the best science you can come up with?
Seems to be. !! We have seen nothing else from you.
John Daly’s rebuttal is published…… just here. http://www.john-daly.com/smoking.htm
Even you could read it if your screen weren’t covered in your own spittle and verbal spew.
Oh dear, and it gets worse..
https://landshape.wordpress.com/2008/06/14/interpretation-bias/
Added CO2 is visible in the emitted spectra of the Earth. This is direct proof of AGW. Are you dense to understand?
There is proof of radiative absorption.
There is no proof of warming, because there are other methods of energy transfer that you are ignoring.
Please provide proof that CO2 causes warming in an open atmosphere.
You have NOT proven anything that was not already known.
Oh so you knew that extra CO2 has measurably decreased outgoing radiation?
yawn.. another zero content post from the cfool.
You really have zero idea how any of this works.. Your ignorance is laughable.
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg
clean the spittle off your screen and look !!
Only a person that has no knowledge of the earths history would claim increased CO2 increases temperature. The facts as we know them only demonstrates a loose correlation where rise in atmospheric CO2 follows rises in temperatures not proceeds them. Besides the fact that CO2 levels often were much higher than present while temperatures were lower.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
That’s proof that increased CO2 at our saturated level doesn’t warm anymore. It does if you increase it from 10 ppm to 20 but not from 300 to 400. All the IR in that band is absorbed.
It takes a month for temperature changes to reach equilibrium due to changes in absorption of radiation. One month. It’s been 18 years without any warming that should have taken only a month.
The spectra changed measurably which is direct proof that at least so far absorption has not saturated.
Do you mean the modelled tiny spectral change in that Harries paper… that John Daly eviscerated…. basically error in measurement from two vastly different satellites.
Or do you mean this, clearly showing a large increase on outgoing longwave infrared.. ie HEAT
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg
And it seem that Harries himself didn’t really know satellite was which. !
Sloppy stuff that should never have got through even pal-review.
Pals don’t let pals make such an amateurish mistake.
typo correction….
“And it seem that Harries himself didn’t really know which satellite was which. !”
You are right, it’s not saturated, because of the tiny wings on either side of the 15 micron band. It’s only 97% saturated. My bad. Actually I think it’s more like 99% but I love the number 97 for some reason.
That 1% of the IR that isn’t saturated is all you morons have to go on. Your entire AGW doctrine is based entirely on that 1%. That’s pathetic and disgusting.
Pathetic and disgusting just like the claims of ocean warming. Notice how the trolls run when I ask how much warming and where.
Watch how they run when you ask how CO2 causes the bottom of the ocean to warm.
Morgan-
Lord Obama says it’s 99.5% now. You’re living in the past.
You need to study Arrhenius and Angstrom, they proved your perspective perverted, prior to your birth.
The spectral-change was reported in at least two studies, so far I haven’t seen any “rebuttals” in the published literature.
cf, what is your reasoning that in spite of the spectral-change, in spite of the increase in CO2….
…temperatures have not reacted to it…and have been flat for the past two decades
Oceans have warmed and swelled up which is easily detectable with altimetry. Note that classical thermometers also measure the length of a column of liquid. There are studies of ocean temperatures using temperature measurements, sea-level measurements and models. Denialists don’t like models.
If you have peer-reviewed papers arguing oceans have not been warming up in the past 20 years please post the references and I promise to take a look. No blog posts please
How much and where?
Oceans have been warming since the end of the LIA, and sea level rise is not accelerating.
…and the rate of sea level rise and ocean temperature has not changed…in spite of increases in CO2 levels
The increase in sea level rise and ocean temp should have kept up with the increase in CO2
…it has not
What is your reasoning for that discrepancy
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4298049?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Rotational rate of the Earth is tied to sea level rise. There has been no long term decrease in rotational rate which can be attributed to increase in sea level rise rates. Measurements indicate that the MAXIMUM present sea level rise is about 1.1mm per year. If the oceans were warming at the rate that the CAGW crowd says, the seas would be rising quicker and the length of day would be increasing faster.
You do believe in conservation of angular momentum, don’t you?
“Oceans have warmed and swelled up which is easily detectable with altimetry”
That is a LIE.
The reference points of the satellites use for sea level have been shown to be subsiding.
The actually value produced if this was corrected for would be around 1.4 mm/year, exactly the same as the sea level gauges.
There is absolutely NO CO2 warming signal in the sea level data. None Whatsoever.
Chinese aerosols, or that volcano nobody saw erupt……lol
Cf, as I said before, radiative response time to equilibrium in temperatures is reached ONE MONTH after changes in radiation. (p. 2 Atmospheric Radiation by Jim Coakley). If the CO2 started going up decades ago, why isn’t it warmer yet? We just had 18 years of one-month equilibriums.
The answer from the alarmists will be that the heat is hiding in the oceans…..even though it cannot be accurately measured, they have a model that demonstrates that.
Sea-level rise can be accurately measured and heat expansion is a large part of the sea-level budget. No hiatus of any kind.
cf….the rate of sea level rise and ocean temp has completely decoupled from the rate of CO2 rise…
sea level and temps have been constant…while CO2 levels continue to increase
What is your reasoning for that discrepancy
Yes sea level can be accurately measured. The tide gauges show no acceleration at all, That means that there is no CO2 warming signal in the tide data.
Its only when you do scientifically corrupt things like grafting on the incorrectly adjusted satellite altimetry data over a very short period at the end of the continuing steady rise that you fraudulently create a rising trend.
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
Oh dear, no wonder they removed that error diagram !
How embarrassing !!
Why are people posting graphs that do not show spectra and somehow think they are relevant?
Besides the fact that the topic of this post is about a cooling Antarctic and the increase in ice there over recent years, there is a person using so called spectral analysis to claim that CO2 is causing catastrophic global warming and it isn’t. Thus the graph based on analysis of ice cores to demonstrate that paleo evidence points to the fact that increased atmospheric CO2 has not resulted in warming in the past but in fact has followed increased temperatures.
Oh, sorry for providing ample empirical evidence that CO2-increase has already changed the spectra, and therefore the radiation-balance of the planet. Some so-called denialists would like to try to deny these facts, as you can see 🙂
No your “just sorry”. The radiation I’m concerned about is that which we would receive in the event of a massive solar flare or perhaps a gamma ray burst from WR104 or of course that from a nuclear weapon.
Your worrying about CO2 warming the planet catastrophically when there is absolutely no empirical evidence it ever has would be just plain silly if it weren’t for the leeches of the world using dupes like you to support their drive for total control of our lives and wealth based on that scam.
Even the IPCC admits that additional CO2 will not cause significant warming, and that is why the alarmists place positive feedbacks in their models that do not exist in nature.
There is ample empirical evidence that CO2 absorbs outgoing radiation and clearly is has done it in the “open atmosphere” as the change is measurable from outside of the atmosphere.
And increase in CO2 would result in an increase in absorption of outgoing radiation.
…which should result in an equal increase in temp
Temp have decoupled from the increase in CO2 levels and temp have remained essentially flat for the past two decades.
What is your reasoning for that?
An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus. There are aerosols and other things affecting the spectrum of the Earth as well so it would be naive to think that C02 is the only factor.
Hey cfgjd! “An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus.”
I think that most (not all) of us here would at least agree with the first half of that sentence, “”An increase on C02 has, ceteris paribus, a warming effect”. The question is how big that warming effect is, and also, do all other things stay the same. Most sceptics would say that while CO2 may very well have some warming, evidence indicates that the warming is so small that it is lost in the noise. Additionally, no one I know of thinks that all other factors stay the same when CO2 is introduced. Certainly GISS and others think that it initiates a positive feedback with increasing water vapor. Most sceptics would probably argue that if such a positive feedback were correct, then any warming from whatever source would initiate the same positive feedbacks, and history shows this not to be the case. In my opinion (just opinion) any extra warming from CO2 just speeds up convection ever so slightly.
The second half of your sentence, “the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus.” is a major point of disagreement. The ocean warming figures of less than a tenth of a degree (24 X 10^22 joules down to 2000 meters) is far less than any reasonable estimate of error bars. Additionally, there has been no measured (yes, measured, not inferred or adjusted) increase in global average temperatures of the lower troposphere for almost 20 years — and without that warming, there is no known mechanism for atmosphereic CO2 warming of the oceans.
cf…an increase in CO2 would have an exponential effect on temperature…
…not linear
Yet, temp have remained constant while CO2 levels have increased.
What is you rational for that?
“and the planet (including the oceans) has been warming up without any kind of a hiatus”
You LIE, yet again.
The atmosphere, you know, that part that CO2 is meant to warm, has not shown ANY warming for the last 18 or so year.
The outgoing longwave shows a big increase.
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg
yes it is
https://wryheat.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/outgoing-radiation-vs-temp-noaa.jpg
Most of the heavy lifting that Co2 was capable of WRT temp increase has already been achieved.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
Was that analysis peer-reviewed and published somewhere? As I pointed out earlier, in the age of open access open review journals there is NO EXCUSE for not publishing, except lack of confidence in one’s own work.
The logarithmic increase in atmospheric absorbed earth radiation due to a doubling of CO2 is not in question. The modtrans graphs in the link wizzum gave were very likely derived from MODTRAN, an atmospheric propagation model developed by the Air Force in the 50s. The question is, does that increased absorption result in catastrophic water vapor feedback induced ocean boiling the alarmists promise? RSS, UAH, and balloon data (the most reliable) say no.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MODTRAN
exactly pmc….global warming theory is about run away global humidity
a slight increase in temp was supposed to increase humidity…which would lead to another slight increase in temp….then another increase in humidity again
wash…rinse…repeat
Uh, obviously, MODTRAN was not written in the 50s.
Bullshit pure and simple bullshit. Your obsession with peer review to confirm physics is disturbing.
It was published on a site that gives it far more peer-review than any journal will ever get.
Getting two of your mates to check for spelling is what passes for peer-review in climate science nowadays, as the total mess made in that Harries et al paper you linked to yesterday aptly showed.
cfgjd-
“…there is NO EXCUSE for not publishing, except lack of confidence in one’s own work.”
So you accept that those who are adjusting temperatures have a lack of confidence in their work. If the math and reasoning behind those adjustments has been published, it would be trivially easy for you to give us a link to it. Until someone can provide that information, peer review is utterly impossible. Without peer review, how can we trust the adjustments?
Jason do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans? Also a reference to a published paper arguing that oceans have not been warming is needed.
Oceans have been rising steadily, no hiatus, so no indication that warming has stopped. Or do some people think that lack of sea level rise due to warming was almost perfectly compensated by increased land ice melting?
You seem to think that only warming can cause sea level rise…..
No, there’s of course also amount of humidity in the atmosphere, water levels in aquifers, snowpack, rivers and lakes, isostatic adjustment changing the size of ocean basins etc.
http://www.aviso.altimetry.fr/fileadmin/images/data/Products/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_MERGED_Global_IB_RWT_GIA_Adjust_2015.png
sedimentation….
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sea-level.gif
How does the level of humidity in the atmosphere raise sea level?
you have to admire the accuracy
http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/slr/cal_j1a.png
cfgjd, I am not quite sure if you are joking or not. You say, “do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans?” Well, the subject under discussion is possible radiative effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. Unless CO2 has some sort of non-photon, action at a distance, I am at a complete loss of how CO2 can warm the oceans without having the IR travel through the atmosphere first. Can you think of any way that CO2 can warm the oceans but not the atmosphere?
“Also a reference to a published paper arguing that oceans have not been warming is needed.” No, actually you do not need that. Even the papers which claim 24 X 10^22 joules heat added can be used for arguing no warming. Remember, as long as the measured effect is smaller than the error bars of the measurement, you cannot have any confidence in the measurement. In the case of 2000 meter ocean heat added, the effect is less than 1/10th degree change over a half century. There is no way that we can know what the temperature of the global oceans were 50 years ago to within a 1/10th degree. Add to that the fact that the atmosphere does not show the needed warming to make that change in the oceans, and you are looking at a case of “we cannot say for certain, but overall evidence does not support ocean warming at a measureable level.”
“Remember, as long as the measured effect is smaller than the error bars of the measurement, you cannot have any confidence in the measurement.”
But when the adjustments are an order of magnitude greater than the error bars, and STILL outside the error bars of the model, the IPCC calls it proof of the model.
Incidentally, until the Karl adjustments, ALL of the records listed the temperature change during this century as statistically indistinguishable from zero. Every single one of them included the zero slope line within the error bars, from 2001-2015.
cfgjd-
“Jason do you have a reference for the your claim that only atmospheric warming can warm the oceans?”
Can you give us a theoretical mechanism by which CO2 increases water temperatures, without first increasing air temperatures? When there’s not even a theoretical mechanism, simply assuming it’s happening is an absurd leap of faith.
3.3mm > 1.7mm
August 2015
Global Regional Trends Comparison (4 Main Regions, various subregions)
The graphs compare the 95% confidence intervals of relative mean sea level trends for CO-OPS and global stations. Trends with the narrowest confidence intervals are based on the longest data sets. Trends with the widest confidence intervals are based on only 30-40 years of data. The graphs can provide an overarching indication of the differing rates of regional vertical land motion, given that the absolute global sea level rise is believed to be 1.7-1.8 millimeters/year
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
180 years > 22 years
Dr. Butterfield > little things like logic
I bet you cannot find one single tide gauge showing any of this mythical acceleration.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_us.htm
We have seen that the RAW Topex data shows very little sea level rise..
All the rest is “adjustments™” which just happen to be done by a group of rabid alarmista, and just happens to be contrary to tide gauges.
Andy, here’s a study, published, that cfg will really not like..
..and you can’t accuse them of grabbing the 2011 bounce down to show it either
they stopped at 2010…….
65% of tide gauges show no sea level rise at all……….that the majority of tide gauges
http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msdfels/wpapers/Tide%20gauge%20location.pdf
It’s a consensus! The raw tide gauge data says that adjusted satellite data is a lie! 😉
If you compare the satellite diagram on the second last page to actual tide gauges in that region there is obviously something very wrong.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html
Satellite altimetry does not agree with the measured facts.. end of story
The error map shown on this page shows exactly what is wrong (now removed from its source , of course)
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/10/11/shock-news-satellite-sea-level-error-is-100-of-the-trend/
Then there is this
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/noaa-2012-report-finds-sea-levels.html
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Bilder_Dateien/5._IKEK_Muenchen/M%C3%B6rnerMunich1.pdf
Satellite altimetry does not agree with the measured facts.. end of story
The value of 3.whatever mm/year is totally based on spurious calibrations and adjustments.
Andy, tides and currents represents 0 as 0-3…..that’s why there are so many little green arrows
If you hover over them , most are somewhere in the middle of that range.. ie about 1.5mm/year, as admitted by NOAA.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150910050658/http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/globalregional.htm
The “raw” Topex data is some voltages from the instrument together with some datation info…good luck with those.
cfgjd-
Comparing the original measurements to the adjustments made to those same measurements, can not show an increase. Math doesn’t work that way. You need to show that, at some earlier period, the rate of increase was measured to be below the rate measured today. And you need to do it with either the same techniques, or with techniques that have been validated against the original ones. Over which period was the altimetry data validated against the tide gauges? What was the measured discordance between them? Was that discordance stable? Periodic? Divergent?
As far as I know, altimeters and tide-gauges agree when altimeter-measurements closest to the tide-gauges are compared. Of course, tide-gauges sample the global sea level very poorly and for obvious reasons there are zero tide-gauges far away from land.
Yes we know that global gravitational masses change all the time causing huge mountains of water to accumulate in the middle of the oceans where they never have before. And that water temperatures actually effect sea levels so much that massive hills of water exist that do not seek to level. Eye Roll.
Really now. The gravity of mass draws water to a higher level in it’s vicinity. Thus water levels next to land masses are generally higher than they are in the vast majority of open water.
Watch and learn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q65O3qA0-n4
Air pressure fluctuations can move the surface by meters. El Nino is visible as 50cm bulge in the middle of the Pacific Ocean right now.
Very temporary and transient anomalies which generally have no effect on human activities or habitation or unless connected with a storm. There is a bump of water that develops under tropical cyclones because of the decreased pressure also but WTF does all that have to do with sea levels in the context of climate or climate change or substantive measurements of sea levels where it counts for humans unless your on the coast where the storm comes ashore? It doesn’t.