Climate Change!

[Greatcloud]

For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.

That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.

But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.

Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.

Venice is still above water.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

A MASSIVE thread clean up has occurred to remove as much of the flame-fest as my head could handle!

Let's get the thread back ON TOPIC and refrain from name-calling and flaming other members. Remember what your mama taught you - if you don't anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Its best to keep your post focused on the subject of the thread rather than making derogatory remarks AT other members as outlined in the rules.

http://www.christianforums.com/rules/#faq_rule_0

●Do not insult, belittle, mock, goad, personally attack, threaten, harass, or use derogatory nicknames in reference to other members or groups of members. Address the context of the post, not the poster.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RickG]

For almost three years, the seas have stopped rising, according to the Jason-1 satellite mission monitored by the University of Colorado.

That said, the seas have risen steadily and slowly for the past 10,000 years through natural warming, and will almost certainly resume soon.

But there is little sign of any accelerated rises, even off Tuvalu or the Maldives, islands often said to be most threatened with drowning.

Professor Nils-Axel Moerner, one of the world’s most famous experts on sea levels, has studied the Maldives in particular and concluded there has been no net rise there for 1250 years.

Venice is still above water.

Global sea level fluctuates from year to year, but still, the overall trend is up.

The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year. While most years have recorded a rise in global sea level, the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific. The insets show sea level changes in the Pacific Ocean caused by the recent El Niño and La Niña (see El Niño/La Niña & PDO for more information on these images). Image credit: S. Nerem, University of Colorado (Source: NASA)

Read about it on the NASA site and understand the reason for the dip.

NASA Satellites Detect Pothole on Road to Higher Seas - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

 

[rambot]

The total output solar flares and sunspots the total output of the sun.

Didn't you put up a page a year ago or so that claimed that the increase in the number of sunspots was going to send us into an ice age, or at the VERY least was causing a lowering of global temperatures?
Did you forget you used that argument for the opposite argument?

I believe climatologists think it is greenhouse gases that caused it.

It's not JUST that they think GG caused it. It's that they have ACTIVELY RULED OUT other possibilities.

 

[Greatcloud]

Didn't you put up a page a year ago or so that claimed that the increase in the number of sunspots was going to send us into an ice age, or at the VERY least was causing a lowering of global temperatures?
Did you forget you used that argument for the opposite argument?


It's not JUST that they think GG caused it. It's that they have ACTIVELY RULED OUT other possibilities.

Sunspot activity has been at an all time high esp. in the 90's but now with cycle 25 the sunspots have been virtually nonexistent. We are now headed into a Maunder like minimum but that does not change the fact that we have been at an 8,000 year high in solar output. We are going from a high to a low very soon now.

BTW Sunspots do not cause lowering of temperatures they increase the temp. due to the solar flares around the sunspots.

 

[RickG]

Didn't you put up a page a year ago or so that claimed that the increase in the number of sunspots was going to send us into an ice age, or at the VERY least was causing a lowering of global temperatures?
Did you forget you used that argument for the opposite argument?


It's not JUST that they think GG caused it. It's that they have ACTIVELY RULED OUT other possibilities.

Not to mention the well known physics of carbon dioxide for over 150 years.

 

[Greatcloud]

Not to mention the well known physics of carbon dioxide for over 150 years.

CO2

 

[RickG]

Sunspot activity has been at an all time high esp. in the 90's but now with cycle 25 the sunspots have been virtually nonexistent. We are now headed into a Maunder like minimum but that does not change the fact that we have been at an 8,000 year high in solar output. We are going from a high to a low very soon now.

BTW Sunspots do not cause lowering of temperatures they increase the temp. due to the solar flares around the sunspots.

Tell us about it when cycle 25 peaks in about 20 years. And we don't have 8,000 years of solar cycle data. What we have is a proxy of 10Be which is an indication of solar activity, not necessarily sun spots.

 

[RickG]

CO2

And your supporting evidence for that gesture is what? And this time please try to cite an actual science source.

 

[Greatcloud]

Tell us about it when cycle 25 peaks in about 20 years. And we don't have 8,000 years of solar cycle data. What we have is a proxy of 10Be which is an indication of solar activity, not necessarily sun spots.

I trust the proxy data to be accurate. An 8,000 year high in the 90's & 00's is what we have don't dance around that fact.




CO2

 

[Greatcloud]

And your supporting evidence for that gesture is what? And this time please try to cite an actual science source.

This is where CO2 becomes part of a religion, because there is considerable scientific evidence that CO2 is not a major cause of global warming.

Religion or Science « Power For USA

It is the sun that is causing the majority of GW not AGW because of CO2.

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/




CO2

 

[RickG]

I trust the proxy data to be accurate. An 8,000 year high in the 90's & 00's is what we have don't dance around that fact.

Ok, give me a source for that claim. I don't know of any science that claims to give sunspot records prior to Galileo and they are sparse.

 

[Greatcloud]

Ok, give me a source for that claim. I don't know of any science that claims to give sunspot records prior to Galileo and they are sparse.

Australian tree ring chronologies as proxy data for solar variability

With the advent of dendrochronology, scientists such as Waldo S. Glock attempted to connect variation in tree growth to periodic solar variations in the extant record and infer long-term secular variability in the solar constant from similar variations in millennial-scale chronologies -wikki



CO2

 

[RickG]

This is where CO2 becomes part of a religion, because there is considerable scientific evidence that CO2 is not a major cause of global warming.

Religion or Science « Power For USA

Not a scientific source.

It is the sun that is causing the majority of GW not AGW because of CO2.

Widespread evidence of 1500 yr climate variability in North America during the past 14 000 yr

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/content/30/5/455.abstractWhere did you come across that source? The paper does not support the claim you made. Even in the abstract it says: "largely restricted to the North Atlantic and adjacent landmasses." I couldn't get past the paywall to read the paper but I did find a specific reference to it in Wiki explaining Bond events.

"Bond events are North Atlantic climate fluctuations occurring every ≈1,470 ± 500 years throughout the Holocene. Eight such events have been identified, primarily from fluctuations in ice-rafted debris. Bond events may be the interglacial relatives of the glacial Dansgaard–Oeschger events, with a magnitude of perhaps 15–20% of the glacial-interglacial temperature change."

"Gerard C. Bond of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, was the lead author of the paper published in 1997 that postulated the theory of 1,470-year climate cycles in the Holocene, mainly based on petrologic tracers of drift ice in the North Atlantic."

Source: Bond event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Wiki)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, I am familiar with the list, almost all have not background in climate science. You might want to read the entire wiki article.

"As of February 2012 less than 10 of the statements in the references for this list are part of the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The rest are statements from other sources such as interviews, opinion pieces, online essays and presentations." (Wiki)

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8

Mark Morano, come on now. Please try to use credible science sources.

http://www.c3headlines.com/global-warming-evidencefacts-against/

More misrepresentation. Hey, I've got an idea. Why not look at the actual science presented by James Hansen, the IPCC, and NASA.

James Hansen's Real 1988 Projections:
RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections

NOAA on carbon dioxide:
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Carbon Cycle Group
Trends in Carbon Dioxide
ESRL Global Monitoring Division - Climate
NCDC: * National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) *
NOAA Climate Services

NASA:
Climate Change: Evidence
Climate Change: Causes
Climate Change: Key Indicators
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp[/quote]

 

[idscience]

This is a formal apology

to those I have offended with some of my emotionally driven comments.

Reflecting on some of my replies I have been out of line, discourteous and abusive

I did not stay on message in some instances and for that I am regretful.

Please accept this apology and my renewed commitment to keep the Jibber jabber out of my replies. I got carried away.​

 

[thaumaturgy]

And your supporting evidence for that gesture is what? And this time please try to cite an actual science source.

You mean animated gifs by the dozens isn't a coherent scientific counterpoint?

 

[SkyWriting]

Because their liers and frauds. And the 97% nonsense, really! it only makes you look uninformed. You are just regurgitating numbers fed to you by the frauds and liberal media who were more than happy to ignore the real scientists telling them the frauds were pulling one over on us.

I love the more is right defense. If enough are wrong it becomes right. We know that has never happened in science before.

Why do you prefer to listen to admitted fraudsters?

I don't think they are frauds at all. The historical record suggests it may get 4 degrees warmer or more. I don't think we could stop it if we tried.
They say 90% of greenhouses gasses come from home appliances.

 

[AV1611VET]

Idscience, that is very commendable of you to do that.

I applaud you, and God bless!

 

[Cromulent]

Idscience, that is very commendable of you to do that.

I applaud you, and God bless!

I agree. I wish I was as humble and quick to realise when it's me who steps out of line.

 

[idscience]

I don't think they are frauds at all. The historical record suggests it may get 4 degrees warmer or more. I don't think we could stop it if we tried.
They say 90% of greenhouses gasses come from home appliances.

The leaders of climate science responsible for government policies world wide have been found to at the very least inaccurate. Both the IPCC and the Australian's were shown to be playing fast and loose with the numbers.
There is plenty of evidence on this thread that shows the debate is not finished as some political agents would like it to be. The over the top alarmists have ruined any credibility others may have had. Confidence in the system is gone. There are many posts here to postpone policies that will increase global hunger, and poverty. It does not seem to be clear that less than 1% of the atmosphere is controlling global temperature.

Taxing farmers, pet owners, and everything that has a breath in it, is a little extreem given the evidence. There seems to be an unrealistic urgency to to act. Trillions of tax payer dollars going to people like Gore and his green companies is not the answer. Planting a tree instead of doing real cuts (carbon credits) is a money scam in my opinion.

Labeling anyone who dissagrees as a climate terrorist/racist or putting them in the same category as a holacost denier, is as extreem as it gets and only verifies the need for more research.

Changing the cause name isn't helpful for credibility either. Climate has become to political now to be believed. It is unfortunate that somebody found a way to make trillions off it.