North Pole could be ice-free this summer, scientists say - Page 7

Libre · 06-30-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

GOOGLE IT!

Let's play bowerbirds game for a minute.

rising sea levels - Google Search

Then let's click on the very first article that pops up:

Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now let's take a look at the very first chart in the article:

Hmm, all I see is a steady state rise post little ice age.

Yet the article tries to convince us we are seeing anthropogenic global warming with bullshit like this:

Quote:

A common perception is that the rate of sea-level rise should have accelerated during the latter half of the 20th century, but tide gauge data for the 20th century show no significant acceleration. Estimates obtained are based on AOGCMs for the terms directly related to anthropogenic climate change in the 20th century, i.e., thermal expansion, ice sheets, glaciers and ice caps... The total computed rise indicates an acceleration of only 0.2 (mm/yr)/century, with a range from -1.1 to +0.7 (mm/yr)/century, consistent with observational finding of no acceleration in sea-level rise during the 20th century.[23] The sum of terms not related to recent climate change is -1.1 to +0.9 mm/yr (i.e., excluding thermal expansion, glaciers and ice caps, and changes in the ice sheets due to 20th century climate change). This range is less than the observational lower bound of sea level rise. Hence it is very likely that these terms alone are an insufficient explanation, implying that 20th century climate change has made a contribution to 20th century sea level rise.[7]

WTF? They don't like the evidence so they try to use "estimates" in place of actual measurement? What an absolute bunch of scientific bullshit.

Let's look at some other critcisms of the IPCC:

Quote:

Uncertainties and criticisms regarding IPCC results

Tide records with a rate of 180 mm/century going back to the 19th century show no measurable acceleration throughout the late 19th and first half of the 20th century. The IPCC attributes about 60 mm/century to melting and other eustatic processes, leaving a residual of 120 mm of 20th century rise to be accounted for. Global ocean temperatures by Levitus et al are in accord with coupled ocean/atmosphere modelling of greenhouse warming, with heat-related change of 30 mm. Melting of polar ice sheets at the upper limit of the IPCC estimates could close the gap, but severe limits are imposed by the observed perturbations in Earth rotation. (Munk 2002)
By the time of the IPCC TAR, attribution of sea-level changes had a large unexplained gap between direct and indirect estimates of global sea-level rise. Most direct estimates from tide gauges give 1.5–2.0 mm/yr, whereas indirect estimates based on the two processes responsible for global sea-level rise, namely mass and volume change, are significantly below this range. Estimates of the volume increase due to ocean warming give a rate of about 0.5 mm/yr and the rate due to mass increase, primarily from the melting of continental ice, is thought to be even smaller. One study confirmed tide gauge data is correct, and concluded there must be a continental source of 1.4 mm/yr of fresh water. (Miller 2004)
From (Douglas 2002): "In the last dozen years, published values of 20th century GSL rise have ranged from 1.0 to 2.4 mm/yr. In its Third Assessment Report, the IPCC discusses this lack of consensus at length and is careful not to present a best estimate of 20th century GSL rise. By design, the panel presents a snapshot of published analysis over the previous decade or so and interprets the broad range of estimates as reflecting the uncertainty of our knowledge of GSL rise. We disagree with the IPCC interpretation. In our view, values much below 2 mm/yr are inconsistent with regional observations of sea-level rise and with the continuing physical response of Earth to the most recent episode of deglaciation."
The strong 1997-1998 El Niño caused regional and global sea level variations, including a temporary global increase of perhaps 20 mm. The IPCC TAR's examination of satellite trends says the major 1997/98 El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) event could bias the above estimates of sea-level rise and also indicate the difficulty of separating long-term trends from climatic variability.[23]

Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People need to wake up and realize they are being conned in what will certainly go down as one of the biggest cons in human history.

Vitiate · 06-30-2008, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

It is one of the most salient question about AGW there is.

So what is the nominal global temperature for the world as we know it? Are we higher or lower than the nominal?

One that doesn't exceed the rate of adaptation by organisms.

Stinger · 06-30-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bowerbird

I am not falling for that one!!

Go google it up and see for yourself what I am talking about.

I know what you are talking about and you can google that they aren't rising and get authoritive opinion otherwise.

I'm asking you are you contending that melting sea ice is causing the sea level to rise?

Stinger · 06-30-2008, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitiate

One that doesn't exceed the rate of adaptation by organisms.

And what temperature is that? Are we higher or lower than that temperature?

Vitiate · 06-30-2008, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stinger

And what temperature is that? Are we higher or lower than that temperature?

Did you not get it the first time? Do you have any concept at all about adaptation? about regional differences and its effects on populations? If organisms start dying out because they can't adapt due to temperature, then the temperature is not 'nominal'. It has to deviate enough that it effects populations and their rate of adaptation.

Burning Giraffe · 07-03-2008, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vitiate

Wow, just wow dude. Our ecosystem is shared with so many other organisms who retain different states of homeostasis. There is no 'right' temperature that will cure all.

Really? Then, so what's the problem?

Ausinus · 07-03-2008, 08:15 AM

But where will Santa make his presents?!

Bowerbird · 07-03-2008, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Libre

Let's play bowerbirds game for a minute.

rising sea levels - Google Search

Then let's click on the very first article that pops up:

Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now let's take a look at the very first chart in the article:

Hmm, all I see is a steady state rise post little ice age.

Yet the article tries to convince us we are seeing anthropogenic global warming with bullshit like this:

WTF? They don't like the evidence so they try to use "estimates" in place of actual measurement? What an absolute bunch of scientific bullshit.

Let's look at some other critcisms of the IPCC:

Sea level rise - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

People need to wake up and realize they are being conned in what will certainly go down as one of the biggest cons in human history.

So, once again the rebuttal of scientific information is "it's bullshit"

Good point