Geophysicists employ novel method to identify sources of global sea level rise

Apr 24, 2012

As the Earth's climate warms, a melting ice sheet produces a distinct and highly non-uniform pattern of sea-level change, with sea level falling close to the melting ice sheet and rising progressively farther away. The pattern for each ice sheet is unique and is known as its sea level fingerprint. Now, a group of geophysicists from the University of Toronto, Harvard and Rutgers Universities have found a way to identify the sea level fingerprint left by a particular ice sheet, and possibly enable a more precise estimate of its impact on global sea levels.

"Our findings provide a new method to distinguish sea-level fingerprints in historical records of sea levels, from other processes such as , tides, changes in , and thermal expansion of the ocean," says Carling Hay, a Ph D candidate in the Department of Physics at the University of Toronto and lead author of a study published in (PNAS). "It may indeed allow us to estimate the contributions of individual ice sheets to rising ."

Scientists around the world are trying to estimate both the current rate of sea level rise and the rates of ice sheet melting, and yet little work has been done to combine the two problems and answer these questions simultaneously.

Hay and colleagues Jerry Mitrovica and Eric Morow of Harvard University, and Robert E. Kopp of Rutgers University sought out statistical techniques that had not previously been applied to this problem, and began developing the new method using data analysis techniques common in other fields such as engineering science, economics, and meteorology. The researchers then tested and refined the method by applying it to synthetic data sets – i.e., data sets with the same amount of noise as real data, but with known melting signals. The tests provide important guidance for the application of the method to actual sea-level records.

"We are now applying our methodology to historical sea level records to provide a new estimate of total sea level rise and the melt rates of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, over the 20th century," says Hay. "Preliminary results show intriguing evidence for acceleration of globally averaged sea-level rise in the second half of the period, along with a simultaneous rise in temperature. Once our study of historical records is complete, the next step will be to incorporate satellite-based measurements of sea-level changes."

The findings are reported in the paper "Estimating the sources of global with data assimilation techniques." The research is supported by funding from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, Harvard University, and the US Department of Energy American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellowship Program.

Explore further: Strong quake hits east Indonesia; no tsunami threat

Related Stories

New findings on why Antarctic ice sheets melt

Jan 17, 2011

Research from Victoria University has revealed new findings on why Antarctic ice sheets have melted in the past, as well as how future melting may affect sea levels.

Sea level rise of 1 meter within 100 years

Jan 08, 2009

New research indicates that the ocean could rise in the next 100 years to a meter higher than the current sea level - which is three times higher than predictions from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ...

Scientists look at global sea level rise

Oct 12, 2005

Scientists from nine nations are involved in the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program's Tahiti Sea Level Expedition, investigating global sea level increases.

Recommended for you

Methane is leaking from permafrost offshore Siberia

2 hours ago

Yamal Peninsula in Siberia has recently become world famous. Spectacular sinkholes, appeared as out of nowhere in the permafrost of the area, sparking the speculations of significant release of greenhouse ...

New discovery in Arctic is a very old clam

2 hours ago

The rapidly thawing Arctic Ocean may be a new frontier but some of the latest news from there concerns a clam that is believed to date back more than a million years.

Researchers on expedition to solve 'small island problem'

3 hours ago

Researchers from the Department of Electronic & Electrical Engineering are starting their new year with an expedition to the island of South Georgia to carry out research into improving weather forecasting. You can follow the team's progress on their blog. ...

User comments : 54

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (21) Apr 24, 2012
"As the Earth's climate warms,..." ?? There hasn't been any warming for at least 12 years as recently confirmed by James Lovelock of Gaia fame on MSNBC. Though over the past 100 yrs or so it has warmed from the Little Ice Age by about 0.7 deg. C.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 24, 2012
Any warming or cooling, seen over as short a time as a century, isn't climate change, it's variation in weather.

Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago. Grape orchards in Scotland 850 years ago. Neither exist today. Why? It is too cold.

200 years ago the Hudson River froze solid enough that Washington had cannon rolled across at Haarlem Heights (near what is now NY City). This cannot happen today. Why? It is too warm.

In both cases, man wasn't the cause of this weather variation. Only a tool, a Green or a Red, could believe (or say they believe) mankind has anything to do with short term weather phenomenon.

Ask yourself, who stands to benefit from the multi trillion dollar carbon abatement industry? Enviro-mental activists and former communists (now green, instead of Red) who wish to control the means of production.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (14) Apr 24, 2012
The deck is being loaded with an increasing number of aces. You just haven't pulled one in the last 10 tries.

Here are the facts...

https://lh3.googl...3er1MBMg

"There hasn't been any warming for at least 12 years as recently confirmed by James Lovelock of Gaia fame on MSNBC." - deatoTard
rubberman
4.2 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
"As the Earth's climate warms,..." ?? There hasn't been any warming for at least 12 years as recently confirmed by James Lovelock of Gaia fame on MSNBC. Though over the past 100 yrs or so it has warmed from the Little Ice Age by about 0.7 deg. C.


Of course,the article is misprint...that was supposed to be cooling climate and dropping sea levels. Stupid useless editors...
Of course the same guys keep using the word retreating instead of advancing when talking about glaciers and permafrost...and disappearing instead of increasing when talking about arctic sea ice. They must be deliberately screwing this stuff up!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (16) Apr 24, 2012
Denialist Fantasy.

"Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago." - ShooTard

"Any warming or cooling, seen over as short a time as a century, isn't climate change, it's variation in weather." - ShooTard

Climate is defined over 30 year or longer periods. Not 100 year or longer periods.

ShooTard can't even manage to remember what the basic definitions are.

Is it possible to get more ignorant than that?

Perhaps the claim made by denialist economists that the earth wasn't warming because temperature isn't real.

It ain't just dumb. It's denialist dumb.
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (16) Apr 24, 2012
Dairy farms in Greenland 1000 years ago. Grape orchards in Scotland 850 years ago. Neither exist today. Why? It is too cold.

200 years ago the Hudson River froze solid enough that Washington had cannon rolled across at Haarlem Heights (near what is now NY City). This cannot happen today. Why? It is too warm.


They found "some" bones from cows on what was Erik the red's farm. Also sheep and reindeer, not a "dairy farm". However in 2006 a farmer's land on greenland produced 20 tons of potatoes which is pretty cool. Regarding the Hudson river freezing during the Maunder minimum...big surprise there. I had to cut my lawn twice in march this year....

"It ain't just dumb. It's denialist dumb."

Queue Parkertard and his links 'o' plenty....
Life_is_like_that
2.4 / 5 (17) Apr 24, 2012
The money quote....

'The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened' - James Lovelock

At least he had the stones to admit he doesn't know....who does?.....who can?....only those with deep seated hubris.

Let the childish ad hominem games begin.
GSwift7
2.1 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012
Climate is defined over 30 year or longer periods. Not 100 year or longer periods.


No, that's not exactly accurate. 30 years is the MINIMUM time span for a single data point in a climate trend. Add several 30 year data points together and you can make a trend. Any variation at time scales under 30 years is generally accepted to be dominated by natural variation, so that you can average out things like ENSO and AMO.

There hasn't been any warming for at least 12 years


Eh, natural variability. However, if I wanted to play devil's advocate, I could counter you by pointing out that it has stayed warm for 12 years now, with no sign of cooling. It could resume warming next year for all you know.
GSwift7
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
At least he had the stones to admit he doesn't know....who does?.....who can?....only those with deep seated hubris.


bravo. I second this comment.

Of course, the typical Green response to that is the Machiavellian proposition of "What if you're wrong? Isn't it better to take action, just in case? The consequences could be BAD"

then the other side says something like "the sky is falling, oh my".

And so we're back where we started. Does that about cover it?
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (17) Apr 24, 2012
Tide Gauges show no acceleration in sea level rise, they show a deceleration.

Computer models that show acceleration are just plain wrong.

A2G
2 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
Life is like that said it all. But no matter what side people are on is this deal, there seems to be nothing that will pull anyone here to the other side.

Both sides we all must admit on sure of their stance and nothing will convince them otherwise. Both sides are more religious than willing to look at data from the other side.

But when you have a huge AGW proponent like Lovelock being honest that must tell you something.

I agree with Lovelock. We really do not know what is happening for sure. Or are mere posters here more knowledgeable than Lovelock?

If he doesn't know, how can I be so presumptuousness to say I know?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
Denialists look for every way imaginable to be wrong. It is a mental disease.

Quantizing 30 year periods is wrong because if a change is defined on 30 year periods then it is defined on all 30 year periods.

If the years run from 0 to 30 then an equally valid datapoint can be had for the period between year -1 and 29, or -2 and 28, etc.

Comparisons from consecutive years are still invalid, but change over any 30 year period - irrespective of it's starting point - remains valid.

"No, that's not exactly accurate. 30 years is the MINIMUM time span for a single data point in a climate trend. Add several 30 year data points together and you can make a trend. - GeenotsoSwift

Ignorance is a prerequisite for being a denialist.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
It tells me that at 92, he is no longer thinking clearly.

"But when you have a huge AGW proponent like Lovelock being honest that must tell you something." - A2G

It also tells me that denialists are grasping at the few straws that they have remaining.

Denialism is only seen coming from the well paid, the very old or the terminally stupid.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (13) Apr 24, 2012
Parker Tards latest lie is easily exposed...

The following EPA graph shows ocean levels over time. The black line running from the start to the end points shows that ocean levels are chronically below the line indicating a increasing yet concave curvature.

The rate of change is therefore accelerating, contrary to Parker Tard's latest lie.

https://docs.goog...zME9DOXc

"Tide Gauges show no acceleration in sea level rise, they show a deceleration." - ParkerTard

Parker Tard has publicly claimed that he will continue to lie for the rest of his life in his denial of global warming.
A2G
2 / 5 (9) Apr 24, 2012
Mental disease is resorting to name calling and insulting people with names like "tard".

A truly intelligent person does not need to resort to such childish behavior.

Then you go on to insult a very intelligent well respected man that is far above your level of behavior only because he disagrees with your view.

VD You are unbelievable.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 24, 2012
Tide Gauges show no acceleration in sea level rise, they show a deceleration.


References for US and Australia

http://www.bioone...-00157.1

http://www.theaus...99350056

"The results of all of our analyses are consistent: There is no indication of an overall world-wide sea level acceleration in the 20th Century data. Rather, it appears that a weak deceleration was present."

http://www.charlo...ive.html
Life_is_like_that
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 24, 2012
Hi guys.....

CAGW isnt even a scientific hypothesis; if it was, it would require accompanying falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are acknowledged to be able to disprove it.

On the contrary, all such possible avenues of validation are denied and evaded.

Boom goes the dynamite!
djr
5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
Life is like that - here is a quote from some data "Since the start of the altimeter record in 1993, global average sea level rose at a rate near the upper end of the sea level projections of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Third and Fourth Assessment Reports" From - http://sealevel.c...-century Can you explain how this is not falsifiable? Surely one would just have to present data that contradicted the hypothesis.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012

The data says otherwise.

What Parker Tard would rather not have people know is that Watson's data analysis ends in 1980. Since then in the areas he studied ocean levels have risen much faster...

In fact, the article linked to by Parker Tard has been identified as fraudulently misrepresenting watson's work.

A letter written to the editor by the head of Watson's research group.

"Your article has misrepresented our Mr Phil Watsons research paper by saying that global warming is not affecting sea levels. This is untrue and misleading and it is not what Mr Watson told your journalist. Mr Watsons research looked only at measurements of historical data. It specifically did not consider predicted linkages between sea level rise and global warming predicted by climate models."

https://docs.goog...t?pli=1#

"There is no indication of an overall world-wide sea level acceleration" - ParkerTard's reference

http://www.climat.../?p=6814
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
Once again, ParkerTard has been found to be engaging in Fraud.

How Not to Analyze Tide Gauge Data

http://tamino.wor...ge-data/
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
Hi guys.....

CAGW isnt even a scientific hypothesis; if it was, it would require accompanying falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are acknowledged to be able to disprove it.

On the contrary, all such possible avenues of validation are denied and evaded.

Boom goes the dynamite!


Well, for starters, we can make the statement that without the human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere, the earth would be cooler than it is right now. The longwave absorbtion characteristics of CO2 are very well documented, as is our contribution to the atmospheric PPM (currently 110 PPM over the highest natural concentration reached in the last million years).
Expanding on that, you have large scale deforestation (also known as areas that sequester CO2) at the hands of man, massive urban heat islands that didn't exist before us and the rest of the GHG's that we dump into the atmosphere.
Dynamites a dud....

rubberman
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
This is why it is just plain stupid to say we are not part of the GW equation. Too many of our activities have a proven effect on the climate system because the laws of physics say these things must have the effect they do.

"Mental disease is resorting to name calling and insulting people with names like "tard".

The "Parkertard" label is well earned as he has stated numerous times that CO2 has no effect...scientifically this equates to saying water is not wet....ergo, Parkertard is born.

Boom go the Methane Clathrates!
Life_is_like_that
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 25, 2012
Rubberman...the scientists making the claims must accompany falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are 'acknowledged' by scientists in their field to be able to disprove it.....not people in blogs gleaning data from their measurements and making judgements outside the scientific community....it's called the 'Scientific Method'.....scientist either participate or they don't...if they don't participate these claims of human induced global warming are mere assertions....sorry...you don't get play scientist....you may have heard the saying 'the burden of proof resides with the person making the claim'. Again....it's called the 'Scientific Method'.
djr
5 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
"not people in blogs gleaning data from their measurements and making judgements outside the scientific community" Wow - Life is like that did not answer my previous question - and then tells someone who is arguing in support of the scientific consensus - that THEY are not allowed to play scientist. So are you and NotParker, and Rygg, and shootist et al allowed to play scientist, but rubberman is not? The world is very upside down this morning...
Life_is_like_that
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
djr....scientists making the claims must provide the criteria to disprove their claims as well or it is not science...full stop....not me....not you....no one in this blog....the 'scientists' making the claims....
djr
5 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
"the scientists making the claims must accompany falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are 'acknowledged' by scientists in their field to be able to disprove it." I am confused - can you direct me to some source that explains this? When I studied psychology - we ran experiments. At the end of the experiment we subjected the data to statistical tests - and looked for significance. We did not have to supply 'falsifiability criteria' Others could then duplicate our experiments, or modify them to further research the issue. I thought that was how all science was conducted - no?
rubberman
5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
djr....scientists making the claims must provide the criteria to disprove their claims as well or it is not science...full stop....


How can you prove that water is wet? How would you be able to disprove that it is wet?
(also, testing to see if CO2 is a greenhouse gas is very simple and I believe MAY have been done...)
Life_is_like_that
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
djr.....non sequitur to claims of human induced global warming......
djr
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
djr....scientists making the claims must provide the criteria to disprove their claims as well or it is not science...full stop.... Sorry life - I did not see ur response. But still - is this always considered a requirement? Is that not just built in to the science. I mean if I claim that the globe is warming - is it not obvious that to counter that claim - you have to prove that it is not warming?
Life_is_like_that
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman.....the 'scientists' making the 'claims' must provide the criteria to disprove their claims....
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
djr.....non sequitur to claims of human induced global warming...... Please explain more - I know what a not sequitur is (I think) but your statement did not make any sense to me - sorry to be dull.
Life_is_like_that
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
drj....not dull...I find your posts engaging....you may have heard of the efforts to obtain the calculations and rationale pertaining to some of the more contentious claims in the global warming arena...

Wikipedia says 'Scientific inquiry' is generally intended to be as objective as possible, to reduce biased interpretations of results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and 'share' all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.....

...full disclosure....thats all....we don't see this with the most contentious claims....
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
OK thanks - I still don't see a reference to help me understand your claim that the scientist doing the research must "accompany falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are 'acknowledged' by scientists in their field to be able to disprove it." I think we agree that there is a lot of bias on both sides of the issue. It is of great interest that we seem to have hit a plateau in terms of temperature over the last 10 to 15 yrs. I think the scientists who have made the strongest claims about the impending inferno are crapping their pants at this point - but time will tell if it is just another plateau - or if the predictions really are that far wrong. As someone who follows the issues closely - I am at rooting for the latter. Vested interests can be a problem - what ever side of the fence they lay on. Full disclosure is of course critical - I think to accuse an organization like NASA of cooking the data (as some do) is ridiculous - but yes - full disclosure.
djr
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
as recently confirmed by James Lovelock of Gaia fame on MSNBC." It is interesting that you are willing to use Lovelock to support your argument. Here is an interesting article on Lovelock - with some historical criticisms (just to show this is not a hatchet job now that Lovelock has said something some scientists may not like) http://thinkprogr...science/ I know I know- ThinkProgress is a left wing echo chamber - just read the article for what it is worth.
rubberman
5 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman.....the 'scientists' making the 'claims' must provide the criteria to disprove their claims....


The fundamental science behind AGW is the PROVEN nature of CO2 as a GHG. There is no criteria to disprove something that is already proven. The statement that the earth is warmer with our CO2 input than it would be without it cannot be falsified unless it is proven that we are wrong about CO2 as a GHG. This is the simplest concept on earth dude. All other forcings and feedbacks (both positive and negative) which affect climate aside, CO2 causes less heat to escape the atmosphere.
Predicting the rate of rise and the effects is where the debate begins but at this point we are calling on 'science' to make an educated guess...not present a falsifiable theory. People disagree with the 'guesses' for various reasons but at the end of it all, claiming humans haven't affected the climate system is essentially claiming water isn't wet.
Life_is_like_that
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
It's the uncertainty in the subject that is the issue...that's where I applaud James Lovelock. He has the integrity to say so.....

As far as 'accompanying falsifiability criteria feasible observations or tests that are 'acknowledged' by scientists in their field to be able to disprove it.'....

This is critical to minimize the influence of the scientist's bias on the outcome of an experiment. That is, when testing a hypothesis or a theory, the scientist may have a preference for one outcome or another, and it is important that this preference not bias the results or their interpretation. The most fundamental error is to mistake the hypothesis for an explanation of a phenomenon, without performing experimental tests.

It just increases the 'bullet proof' -ness (ha) of ones hypothesis...
Life_is_like_that
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman co2 is a proven greenhouse gas....no question....that's not the issue....full disclosure is the issue.
rubberman
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman co2 is a proven greenhouse gas....no question....that's not the issue....full disclosure is the issue.


Full disclosure as to why a scientist predicted the future to unfold a certain way based on knowledge he is working with in the present? The second personal opinion becomes involved you have alot of fuel for debate as these forums demonstrate.
Life_is_like_that
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman....no....full disclosure as a basic expectation to document, archive and 'share' all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists....
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 25, 2012

The fundamental science behind AGW is the PROVEN nature of CO2 as a GHG.


Officially, CO2 is reponsible for 9 - 26% of the "greenhouse effect.

Therefore "officially" as much as 91% of any warming or cooling caused by changes in GHG is NOT caused by CO2.

Then there are many other factors such as sunshine, albedo, clouds, TSI etc etc.

So, only really dishonest people blame all warming on CO2 ...

Please document all changes in climate factors that occurred in the warming from 1980 to 1998, please explain why it cooled after 1998, and please explain which of those many factors were responsible for the warming that occurred from 1910 to 1944 (which is 100% natural since CO2's effect could not have been felt before 1950).

For example, it is now about .8C cooler than 1998. Therefore CO2 could be responsible for 9 - 26% of GHG's portion of that .8C of cooling.

Did CO2 go down from 1998 to 2012?

rubberman
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
"So, only really dishonest people blame all warming on CO2 ..."

This is a statement of truth, I agree. Our emergence from the Maunder minimum could not have happened without natural forcing.

"Then there are many other factors such as sunshine, albedo, clouds, TSI etc etc."

Since we both know the answer to your question below is no, you explain the .8 degrees of cooling with the above statement.

"For example, it is now about .8C cooler than 1998. Therefore CO2 could be responsible for 9 - 26% of GHG's portion of that .8C of cooling.

Did CO2 go down from 1998 to 2012?"

Would 1998 have been the outlier that it is without human contributions to the CO2? Possibly...would it have been as pronounced? No. Would the earth have cooled more than .8 degrees without CO2 atmospheric content continuously rising? Yes. it would have cooled 9-26% more. You regularily mention the cyclical nature of climate, elevated CO2 amplifies the warming cycles AND hampers the cooling ones 9-26%.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
1998 was just a big El Nino. They happen. Had nothing to do with CO2. Dishonest people said it did.

elevated CO2 amplifies the warming cycles AND hampers the cooling ones 9-26%.


No. GHG's are only one factor. The GHG factor might be 0% unless all other climate variables are accounted for.

djr
4 / 5 (4) Apr 25, 2012
.full disclosure as a basic expectation to document, archive and 'share' all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists.... I fully agree - and the jerks in East Anglia did untold damage to the credibility of the whole field. They should have resigned immediately. Hopefully we may have learned - but I suspect not. Now Rossi and his ecat - that is a whole nother story!
rubberman
5 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
rubberman....no....full disclosure as a basic expectation to document, archive and 'share' all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists....


I agree fully that any scientist willing to put a number on a projected temperature rise had better be able to justify the number by showing the data that was used to obtain the projection.
But at this point we are again talking about the future behaviour of the largest system we as a species have the ability to affect and a staggering # of variables that we have no control over which also affect said system. The whole anti-AGW stance bases it's arguments on these variables as a means to deflect the attention from the one variable we can control and which AGW is based on...CO2. What we do with what we know is another matter entirely....
rubberman
5 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
1998 was just a big El Nino. They happen. Had nothing to do with CO2. Dishonest people said it did.

elevated CO2 amplifies the warming cycles AND hampers the cooling ones 9-26%.


No. GHG's are only one factor. The GHG factor might be 0% unless all other climate variables are accounted for.



This is my point, the GHG factor can never be 0%, regardless of the other variables, YOU were the one who threw the 9-26% number out there, how can you follow it up with that statement? I am trying to stay away from personal attacks but c'mon man...think about what you are typing before you hit that enter key. Another El nino like 1998 under current conditions and we have a new warmest year on record.
Life_is_like_that
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 25, 2012
djr....rubberman.....love ya guys......honest discourse is the only way to go....not always easy on these blogs....HA!
rubberman
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 25, 2012
djr....rubberman.....love ya guys......honest discourse is the only way to go....not always easy on these blogs....HA!


Ditto dude, it's been a pleasure!
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Apr 25, 2012
the GHG factor can never be 0%


Sure it can. Water vapor can drop. Do you know it didn't?

"The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the greenhouse gases."

Are 100% sure clouds are exactly the same as they were before 1950?

Another El nino like 1998 ...


Another La Nina like 2008 and global agriculture is screwed.

And guess what ... when the PDO turns negative, we get more La Nina's than El Nino's.

"This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation cool trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin, said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. The persistence of this large-scale pattern [in 2008] tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.

http://earthobser...?id=8703
Howhot
5 / 5 (5) Apr 25, 2012
The problem is, AGW is scientific fact. All the data points to CO2 from fossil fuels, we know roughly how many tetra-tones of CO2 we've pumped out of the ground, and we know how much we have shoved right into the atmosphere. Nothing could be clearer than those facts. Using simple physics, you can calculate global warming using computers. There are no philosophical arguments in the methods of developing the facts. They are what they are; Cause and effect.


rubberman
5 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
the GHG factor can never be 0%

"Sure it can. Water vapor can drop. Do you know it didn't?"

Wow...you need to adjust one of the knobs on your helmet or something.

If GHG's were not a factor we would all be dead. Regional variations in atmospheric water vapor content only effect climate in a few parts of the world to the point where the forcing is reflected in average yearly temperature ( the UK and British columbia,Canada to name a couple). Should climate change alter wind and ocean circulations from present patterns, these are areas we would expect to cool due to the changes.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2012
i have the feeling djr and life are the same person o_O they talk in the same manner.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
Odd that the temperature records don't show it.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

"For example, it is now about .8C cooler than 1998" - ParkerTard

Tard Boy... Shouldn't the trend line slope downward if the temperature has declined as you have dishonestly claimed?

Do you intend to remain a congenital liar for the rest of your life Parker Tard?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Apr 29, 2012
"i have the feeling djr and life are the same person" - so no two people are allowed to talk in the same manner? I was challenging life on a point earlier in this post. I have one handle that I use on physorg - that is djr - no aliases - my thoughts are my own.
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) May 04, 2012
Do you intend to remain a congenital liar


Use of the word 'congenital' in that context doesn't make any sense at all. Do you know what it means?

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.