| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by David K  | | Quote: Originally posted by wessongroup | "The key message is that the planet is warming," Gavin Schmidt, the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City, told
reporters at a news conference. "And our understanding of why those trends are occurring is also very robust. It's because of the greenhouse gases
that we['ve] put into the atmosphere over the last 100 years." [6 Unexpected Effects of Climate Change]"
https://www.livescience.com/64700-2018-heat-record.html
Would imagine heat has influence over the water cycle ... just saying  |
Or it is a very normal trend that keeps repeating the older earth gets...
What greenhouse gasses were the Vikings making in 1000 AD??? LOL |
Heyc David, how about you find the same graph with the temperatures on them? that graph is absolutely useless, is that 10 degrees above and below
normal? or is it 2 degrees? or 0.1 degree. without that context yoiur graph is useless.
I will say thank you though, that graph is actually pretty famous, and we have a very good understanding of the climactic maxima and minima this is
showing. And not only that - we pretty much understand why it happened - Milankovich cycles and some other contributing stuff! Unfortunately,
current data cannot be explained by those cycles, it's supposed to be getting cooler in the northern hemisphere for the next 13,000 years, and it's
obviously not - and what explains that? other than carbon in the atmosphere? nothing!
so since you are such a fan of wikipedia - here you go! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
Be forwarned - its science stuff, and I know you recognize that all scientists are in on this global conspiracy, in this case those dang
scientists actually went to the trouble of fabricating up ice cores supposedly drilled from the Arctic and Antactic - and you and I know they made
then in a popcycle mold in a freezer in Encino!e
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64476
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
caj13, how about you showing me a place where the sea has risen. I keep providing visual proof, that doesn't need a Ph.D. to see, and all I get back
are excuses or the subject is changed. I think until evidence is provided that shows otherwise, I am happy with what my eyes see and I am not going to
become Chicken Little and panic over something that cannot be changed by taxing us all into oblivion.
As for which liars to side with? How about the ones that don't want to kill babies, or let America be invaded, or reverse a growing economy, or wear
white hoods???  
I wish you all happiness and prosperity!
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Taxed into Oblivion ? The GOOD News IS ......................
Think Happy Thoughts. I looked out this a.m. and the big tree in my front yard appears to still be the same distance from the ocean. More or less.
Obviously all that nonsensical NOAA satellite ranging is bunk.
ALL of those opining here to little (no ?) effect will interpret and frame ANY data in terms of their own preconceived conclusions safe in the
knowledge that they are almost certain to be Maggot-Feed sooner than they're taxed into oblivion.
And, whatever anyone here has thought or written (along with them ?) will be unremarked and unremembered.
Slainte Mhath !
|
|
|
Lee
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3455
Registered: 10-2-2006
Location: High in the Colorado Rockies
Member Is Offline
|
|
These pics looked photo shopped. Don't ya have real proof
DKKK?
| Quote: Originally posted by David K |
You can throw all the links to words in the world, but here is the evidence, the facts, the truth, the science... OBSERVE 64 years of sea level rise:
1952:
2016:
64 years...   |
US Marines: providing enemies of America an opportunity to die for their country since 1775.
What I say before any important decision.
F*ck it.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
it is very difficult to find graphs with numbers
it is very difficult to find graphs that reach from 2,000 years ago to today
once you find some, you notice that some display ocean average temperature - others land mass temperature
in the end I found 2 - but they are of different scale
AD to 2000 displays a range of +5 and -5 degrees Celsius
1880 to 2017 displays a range of +0.6 and -0.4 degrees Celsius
so it has gotten warmer than average today by about 0.6 degrees C - about as warm as it was 1,000 years ago
whether this is good or bad - I don't know
I am not an expert
and i haven't decided yet which experts to believe
seems most have an agenda
some have noble agendas (saving us from doom)
however, any agenda makes people lie (first and foremost the experts)
so I am cautius whom to believe
churches have shown us that believing can be bad for your health
so I stay out of it
anyway, below the numbers
AD to 2,000 first
1880 to today next:
stitching them together for the bigger picture:
whether the warming trend is normal or threatening is impossible for us normal people to say
whether or not we humans have caused the latest rise is impossible for us normal people to say
whether or not we can reduce that rise is impossible for us normal people to say
so we have to leave it to our über-parents - the governments
and despite some good work, they have shown a tendency to tornillo us (no graph)
I am going for an early Margarita to reduce my temperature
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
Lee
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 3455
Registered: 10-2-2006
Location: High in the Colorado Rockies
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by David K |
As for which liars to side with? How about the ones that don't want to kill babies, or let America be invaded, or reverse a growing economy, or wear
white hoods???
I wish you all happiness and prosperity! |
Religious (moral) and extreme right wing political rants are inappropriate here DK.
This stuff is really upsetting for some folks.
Try to focus more on Baja. If you're still worked up, take a break?
US Marines: providing enemies of America an opportunity to die for their country since 1775.
What I say before any important decision.
F*ck it.
|
|
|
wessongroup
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21152
Registered: 8-9-2009
Location: Mission Viejo
Member Is Offline
Mood: Suicide Hot line ... please hold
|
|
Sea Level Rise and factors contributing to same
GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010
“Estimating and accounting for twentieth-century global mean
sea-level (GMSL) rise is critical to characterizing current and future human-induced sea-level change. Several previous analyses of tide gauge
records1,2,3,4,5,6—employing different methods to accommodate the spatial sparsity and temporal incompleteness of the data and to constrain the
geometry of long-term sea-level change—have concluded that GMSL rose over the twentieth century at a mean rate of 1.6 to 1.9 millimetres per year.
Efforts to account for this rate by summing estimates of individual contributions from glacier and ice-sheet mass loss, ocean thermal expansion, and
changes in land water storage fall significantly short in the period before 19907. The failure to close the budget of GMSL during this period has led
to suggestions that several contributions may have been systematically underestimated8. However, the extent to which the limitations of tide gauge
analyses have affected estimates of the GMSL rate of change is unclear. Here we revisit estimates of twentieth-century GMSL rise using probabilistic
techniques9,10 and find a rate of GMSL rise from 1901 to 1990 of 1.2 ± 0.2 millimetres per year (90% confidence interval). Based on individual
contributions tabulated in the Fifth Assessment Report7 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this estimate closes the twentieth-century
sea-level budget. Our analysis, which combines tide gauge records with physics-based and model-derived geometries of the various contributing signals,
also indicates that GMSL rose at a rate of 3.0 ± 0.7 millimetres per year between 1993 and 2010, consistent with prior estimates from tide gauge
records4. The increase in rate relative to the 1901–90 trend is accordingly larger than previously thought; this revision may affect some
projections11 of future sea-level rise.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14093
there are active footnotes contained in the “quoted abstract”
Stratospheric ozone over the United States in summer linked to observations of convection and temperature via chlorine and bromine catalysis
"We present observations defining (i) the frequency and depth of convective penetration of water into the stratosphere over the United States in
summer using the Next-Generation Radar system; (ii) the altitude-dependent distribution of inorganic chlorine established in the same coordinate
system as the radar observations; (iii) the high resolution temperature structure in the stratosphere over the United States in summer that resolves
spatial and structural variability, including the impact of gravity waves; and (iv) the resulting amplification in the catalytic loss rates of ozone
for the dominant halogen, hydrogen, and nitrogen catalytic cycles. The weather radar observations of ∼2,000 storms, on average, each summer that
reach the altitude of rapidly increasing available inorganic chlorine, coupled with observed temperatures, portend a risk of initiating rapid
heterogeneous catalytic conversion of inorganic chlorine to free radical form on ubiquitous sulfate−water aerosols; this, in turn, engages the
element of risk associated with ozone loss in the stratosphere over the central United States in summer based upon the same reaction network that
reduces stratospheric ozone over the Arctic. The summertime development of the upper-level anticyclonic flow over the United States, driven by the
North American Monsoon, provides a means of retaining convectively injected water, thereby extending the time for catalytic ozone loss over the Great
Plains. Trusted decadal forecasts of UV dosage over the United States in summer require understanding the response of this dynamical and photochemical
system to increased forcing of the climate by increasing levels of CO2 and CH4."
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/25/E4905
Took this guy around around a year to “review” the report for accuracy, prior to publishing “Edited by John H. Seinfeld, California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA, and approved May 9, 2017 (received for review November 28, 2016)”
Have fun with the reports … question on the report’s “content and accuracy welcomed 
Whats an inch of sea level rise look like … by the tree
[Edited on 2-8-2019 by wessongroup]
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
The Shifting Sands in Time
The sandy shorelines often come and go (in varying degrees) with the tides.
And come back again.
Proving nothing much regarding the extent of sea-level rise over the (relatively-short) time frame.
It's fun to watch the two entrenched sides argue, though.
With one side dominated by a strident refrain of (imminent ?) catastrophe while the opposition "don't worry-be happy" bunch has a
somewhat conflicted mixture of "nothing's happening", "what's happening is a normal cycle" and/or "it's so slight that we need not worry" along with
some "OH NO, we'll be taxed out of our Toys".
Personally, I'm fed up with these sub-40 degree days and nights in the 20s. I'd just like to see some Climate Change that will keep
Winter warm for whatever functional time that I've got left. After that ................ Oh Well. Not my problem.
|
|
|
JoeJustJoe
Banned
Posts: 21045
Registered: 9-9-2010
Location: Occupied Aztlan
Member Is Offline
Mood: Mad as hell
|
|
One thing you'll rarely see from the global warming denier crowd, is they rarely if ever provide any links backing up scientific research, that denies
global warming, but the few times they do provide links, it's pretty much lightweight material from blogs, like the ones Cliffy linked. ( well at
least he trying)
In one Cliff blog below, it's ran by registered financial adviser, and the other blog is owned by a so-called, Seal Holder, meteorologists, which I
believe is something like a TV weather girl.
The few times denier crowd actually comes up with real scientific evidence, a little digging usually shows it's a hired gun, non-climate scientist in
a releated field that has links to Exxon, or other polluting corporation, that has a vested interest in denying global warning, in order to make
obscene profits, and keep their legal liability down.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
interesting: "global warming denier" = non believer = infidel
this is as wrong as "greenhouse gases"
our atmosphere has a lot of different gases
and they are just that - gases
however, some of the early guys in the man made global warming saga started to use "greenhouse gases" to make it easy for everyone to connect CO2 to
the sensation one has in a green house. Uncomfortably warm and humid.
Scientists should not use those old church tricks.
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
MrBillM
Platinum Nomad
Posts: 21656
Registered: 8-20-2003
Location: Out and About
Member Is Offline
Mood: It's a Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah Day
|
|
Wondering Whether the Wacky Weather will cause us to Wither ?
Whatever ?
IF SO, Conclusive (or, at least, unarguably affirmative) evidence which would convince politically partisan skeptics is
likely a long ways out. Hopefully, not beyond a point of no return, but as Doris said "Que Sera Sera".
The history of mankind has (nearly) always been one of defending parochial short-term interests while minimizing the likelihood of future harm.
The Climate Change debate isn't likely to move any on either side given the inexorable link between their
political thinking and the question.
AND, as their (the skeptics) last rhetorical redoubt, whatever occurs can be attributed to historical (relatively) short-term natural
climate variances.
"You don't know what you've got till it's Gone."
Joni said that.
"F - IT ! There is NO Hope."
I said that.
With apologies to Oscar Hammerstein:
"Let's all play until Judgement day. Burn that Oil and that Coal, Get a little drunk, stay out of Jail. All that Weather just keeps on
rolling along ............."
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
when you look at Davids photos, in comparison - those palms in the current photo do not look as healthy as the ones in the photos form the 50's.
looks like salt water intrusion into the root zone!
and anyone notice the other 3 trees on that same beach line - well I mean you can't see em in Davids photos, but they are obvious and healthy in the
historical photos - what happened to them? where did they go? and what happened to the palm on the right side in the 1950's photo?
[Edited on 11-3-2019 by caj13]
[Edited on 11-3-2019 by caj13]
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64476
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
They got old ... like your denials here that the sea is not higher than it was in 1949, 70 years ago!
|
|
|
caj13
Senior Nomad
Posts: 998
Registered: 8-1-2017
Member Is Offline
|
|
Uh - heres some real data David - instead of making false statements - how about you show me your "science" since you are a self proclaimed man of
science, I would expect that you have data from multiple sources that support your contention - so how about it, where are the data you are relying
on?
Sea level has been rising over the past century, and the rate has increased in recent decades. In 2018, global mean sea level was 3.2 inches (81
millimeters) above the 1993 average—the highest annual average in the satellite record (1993-present). It was the seventh consecutive year, and the
23nd out of the last 25 years in which global mean sea level increased relative to the previous year.
From the 1970s up through the last decade, melting and thermal expansion were contributing roughly equally to the observed sea level rise. But the
melting of glaciers and ice sheets has accelerated, and over the past decade, the amount of sea level rise due to melting—with a small addition from
groundwater transfer and other water storage shifts—has been nearly twice the amount of sea level rise due to thermal expansion.
Glacier mass loss accelerated from 226 gigatons/year between 1971 and 2009 to 275 gigatons/year between 1993 and 2009. Ice loss from the Greenland Ice
Sheet increased six-fold, from 34 gigatons/year between 1992-2001 to 215 gigatons/year between 2002 and 2011. Antarctic ice loss more than quadrupled,
from 30 gigatons/year between 1992 and 2001 to 147 gigatons/year from 2002 to 2011.
heres the citation for those Data David - because people who love science recognize the requirement to cite information used to support your
contentions! right?
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
OOPs, new paper out in Nature 5 days ago David, using real science, turns out we have been understimating the risks because the elevation models
are biased toward higher elevations - its all explained here in the paper - as a man of science, I'm sure you will find it interesting and
educational! science is kind of like that!
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12808-z
Science is a real thing David, it's not a word you throw around to try and impress your friends! Its hard work following vigorous protocols and is
reviewed by the worlds best before it is published. Its not half baked declarations by uneducated people trying to find a way to keep believing their
biases.
Your disrespect for science and scientists is noted, and I will hold you accountable for that.
|
|
|
BajaRat
Super Nomad
Posts: 1302
Registered: 3-2-2010
Location: SW Four Corners / Bahia Asuncion BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: Ready for some salt water with my Tecate
|
|
Round and round we go
Undeniably our home is being destroyed by humanities reckless
" We can't hurt big bad Mother Nature " attitude.
While we argue greed and lack of support for new ideas and technological advances sends many species to an early grave never to be seen again.
If we continue to support the idea that we're not hurting anything with our current human behavior and activities the planet is likely to get a do
over without our presence.
We don't have to agree on everything,
But let's stop sh#tting in our kitchen
Lionel 
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64476
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
Yet, everything above the sea way back then, still is today. 3"? You are worked up over 3-4" when the sea rises 10 feet, daily... over and over?
Yes, Lionel is right... Live clean and don't hurt others.
|
|
|
paranewbi
Senior Nomad
Posts: 913
Registered: 4-15-2011
Location: San diego
Member Is Offline
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by 4x4abc | it is very difficult to find graphs with numbers
it is very difficult to find graphs that reach from 2,000 years ago to today
once you find some, you notice that some display ocean average temperature - others land mass temperature
in the end I found 2 - but they are of different scale
AD to 2000 displays a range of +5 and -5 degrees Celsius
1880 to 2017 displays a range of +0.6 and -0.4 degrees Celsius
so it has gotten warmer than average today by about 0.6 degrees C - about as warm as it was 1,000 years ago
whether this is good or bad - I don't know
I am not an expert
and i haven't decided yet which experts to believe
seems most have an agenda
some have noble agendas (saving us from doom)
however, any agenda makes people lie (first and foremost the experts)
so I am cautius whom to believe
churches have shown us that believing can be bad for your health
so I stay out of it
anyway, below the numbers
AD to 2,000 first
1880 to today next:
stitching them together for the bigger picture:
whether the warming trend is normal or threatening is impossible for us normal people to say
whether or not we humans have caused the latest rise is impossible for us normal people to say
whether or not we can reduce that rise is impossible for us normal people to say
so we have to leave it to our über-parents - the governments
and despite some good work, they have shown a tendency to tornillo us (no graph)
I am going for an early Margarita to reduce my temperature
|
I think it is quite obvious that the warming trend has withdrawn the level of moisture from the recorded hand as illustrated in the hand of 4x4abc.
The fall and rise of the margarita adds nothing to the argument that the level of tidal movement is reflected in the topical surface of the gripping
mass.
Until we can locate a photo of such illustrated hand from some decades past with any evidence of liquid level within the margarita...we are left to
graphs and peer-reviewed publications that dictate our contrived opinions.
|
|
|
ncampion
Super Nomad
Posts: 1238
Registered: 4-15-2006
Location: Loreto
Member Is Offline
Mood: Retired and Loving it
|
|
Just wondering how accurately man could measure sea level and temperature 2000 years ago. Or even 200 years ago.
Living Large in Loreto. Off-grid and happy.
|
|
|
4x4abc
Ultra Nomad
Posts: 4163
Registered: 4-24-2009
Location: La Paz, BCS
Member Is Offline
Mood: happy - always
|
|
when the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger
Harald Pietschmann
|
|
|
David K
Honored Nomad
Posts: 64476
Registered: 8-30-2002
Location: San Diego County
Member Is Offline
Mood: Have Baja Fever
|
|
I have no problem with Carl or Harald saying the sea is four inches higher than 100 years ago. They also should have no problem with me pointing out
that is not abnormal and is not bringing the sea above the tidal range which is several feet in most places.
The difference is they have a need to add insults and act like photos don't prove anything when they clearly do... as long as the rise is enough to
actually matter to anyone... which it isn't at 4". Maybe in 200 years when it is a whole foot higher than in 1919, it may affect somebody, but I kind
of doubt it. The technology in 200 years will likely allow them to move a foot more higher... maybe even hover over it?
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
![[*]](images/xmbforum/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
