AGES OF OCEAN FLOOR GRAPHIC
Posted on 07/27/2011 9:51:14 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Amusing, but water would also contract as it cools along with the planet. The only point where the water would expand as it got colder is below 4°C (about 39°F) . . .
Laws of physics and thermodynamics would dictate that the Earth would shrink a bit as it cools.. hence sea water levels should advance, albeit minimally, as the mass of the Earth loses a bit of girth. just a theory. :-)
*****************************************
Please Note:
*****************************************************
176 Responses to “It wasn’t CO2: Global sea levels started rising before 1800”
Link to the article at JoNova:
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/07/global-sea-levels-started-rising-before-1800-jevrejeva/
Credit Fred with pointing that out on a thread some time ago.
Not really. The leftist models simply include a political-correctness coefficient. This is a coefficient designed to give the answers that most help the good, angelic, and compassionate liberals against the evil, demonic, and cold-hearted conservatives. As such, it must be added to all academic papers in order to get the paper journal-published.
So in this case, actual sea level increase = 0.34cm. The authors then simply add their political correctness coefficient in order to argue that actual sea level rise =0.34cm + PC Coefficient, where PC Coefficient>0, and increases as Obama's poll numbers decrease.
What exactly do you hard-hearted hate-filled conservatives find wrong with this approach? /sarc
I knew it! Those evil hate-filled conservative Capitalists put a big huge flaming ball in the sky just to destroy our planet!
“in the 1980’s and 1990’s, the sun was the most active it’s been, in the past 1000 years.
...and temperatures went up!
in the past 10 years, the magnetic flux readings, etc., are the lowest ever recorded by instruments. sunspots are down.
...and the earth has gotten colder, since 2003.”
Very interesting; info I’ve not previously seen. Can you give me a source citation? I need it to help educate some fellow scientists that a few years ago were hyping global warming, but now speak only of climate change.
***************************EXCERPT************************************************
Lawrie:
July 26th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
It is this sort of science and the publication of it that has Christine Milne so fired up. If you can’t agree with the bought and paid for government scientists then the people must be protected from such disclosure. Turnbull says we should respect science but is he referring to Jo’s science or of Will Steffen who speaks of “carbon pollution”. This battle has been won but the enemy don’t know they are beaten yet. There are more scientists speaking out and this is what is of concern to the adherents. The public are finding it hard to believe that an increasing number of scientists are wrong while the number of chosen tends to shrink.
Keep up the pressure because they are starting to falter. The more ridiculous their claims when opposed by considered facts leads to more questioning and demands for answers.
Baloney! I don't believe it. It's not CO2 and it's not anything else other than inter-glacial warming going on for the last 40k years.
Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud
That article kills any thought of planetary warming from any cause. Think about it. If there is absolutely no sign of rising sea levels how could the planet be warming? The rise in sea level in the last 100 years is almost exactly the same as the average over the last 40,000 years caused by the inter-glacial period we are in.
***********************************EXCERPT**********************************************
wes george:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Hang on a second. What about the logarithmic effect of CO2? Wasn’t the first 15% (or whatever) of anthropogenic CO2 we put into the atmosphere before 1945 far more effective as a GHG than CO2 we added later?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/
The arrow “something caused seas to start rising” points right to the bottom of the Dalton Minimum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalton_Minimum
We might expect sea levels to start rising as it naturally warms coming out of the Dalton minimum. Then the warming stalls before taking up —right at the beginning of the Industrial Age!—a remarkably consistent linear upward trajectory…. It’s this remarkable timing and linear correlation between rising sea levels and rising atmospheric CO2 that seems fits the implications of the AGW hypothesis perfectly. Correlation isn’t causation, but it looks pretty suspect…
Yet while this graph, does seem to support the AGW hypothesis, it only supports the mild version, not its CAGW cousin, since extrapolation of the trend doesn’t cause catastrophic sea-level rises. Furthermore, in your last post (and in Jevrejeva figure 3 here) you show that sea level rise acceleration has plateaued, which is also what the logarithmic effect of CO2 would predict. There’s no more significant warming to come from adding more CO2 to the atmosphere. So extrapolating the past trend forward might even overestimate the rise in sea levels, especially if another downturn in the ~60-cycle was to coincident with a new minimum.
Obviously, I’m not an expert, but I see don’t see this data as evidence against AGW hypothesis, in fact, it’s data like this that the AGW hypothesis was first created to explain. However, it also seems to show that AGW is a minor climate phenomena of little threat to humanity or the environment, much less worth scuttling the world’s economy over.
***********************************EXCERPT***********************************************
Lionell Griffith:
July 26th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
wes george @ 13,
It’s this remarkable timing and linear correlation between rising sea levels and rising atmospheric CO2 that seems fits the implications of the AGW hypothesis perfectly.
The “rising sea levels” also correlates well with the price of postage stamps, the consumption of gin, teachers salaries, miles of highways built, and the progression of the years. I suspect we can find countless other things with a high correlation. So what?
Correlation is simply another statistical manipulation that you can perform between any two sets of numbers. The interpretation of which cannot be based upon neither the numbers nor the degree of correlation. The interpretation must be based upon a vast array of facts outside of the data itself.
Keep in mind, doing statistical calculations is easy. Most any scientific calculator or PC with Excel can do them. Validly interpreting the results of those calculations is the really hard part. You actually have to know something about reality to do it. Making up a story and then finding something that has a correlation with is not the way.
I suggest you get one of Crakar24′s BS meters. You might find it helpful. Quoting myself.
The fundamental principle here is one cannot properly go beyond the evidence and call it science. It becomes speculation at best and demagoguery or fraud at worst.
Thanks, what goes up must go down. ask bill clinton to explain that one. the blewinski effect.. inflation of global proportions.. It’s the solar wind, yaknow.
|
|
|
| GGG managers are SunkenCiv, StayAt HomeMother & Ernest_at_the_Beach | |
|
|
Thanks Ernest. |
|
|
|
|
But you can't convince the political scientists of that - too much money and too many reputations at stake.
They've known all along the Medieval Warm and Little Ice Age threw a wrench in their theories. Hence, the Hockey Stick fraud.
Lawyers for DeChristopher plan an appeal
Global Warming on Free Republic
Bookmark
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
