Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought
- Thread starter ScienceRocks
- Start date
From the introduction of the SPM of AR5
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}
Skipping down a bit
C. Drivers of Climate Change
Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of climate change. Radiative forcing14 (RF) quantifies the change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 relative to 1750, unless otherwise indicated. Positive RF leads to surface warming, negative RF leads to surface cooling. RF is estimated based on in-situ and remote observations, properties of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and calculations using numerical models representing observed processes. Some emitted compounds affect the atmospheric concentration of other substances. The RF can be reported based on the concentration changes of each substance15. Alternatively, the emission-based RF of a compound can be reported, which provides a more direct link to human activities. It includes contributions from all substances affected by that emission. The total anthropogenic RF of the two approaches are identical when considering all drivers. Though both approaches are used in this Summary for Policymakers, emission-based RFs are emphasized.
• The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than that reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most greenhouse gas concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net cooling effect (negative RF). {8.5}
• The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). The RF from changes in concentrations in these gases is 2.83 [2.26 to 3.40] W m–2. {8.5}
• Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] W m−2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting halocarbons have caused a net positive RF of 0.18 [0.01 to 0.35] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Their own positive RF has outweighed the negative RF from the ozone depletion that they have induced. The positive RF from all halocarbons is similar to the value in AR4, with a reduced RF from CFCs but increases from many of their substitutes. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of short-lived gases contribute to the total anthropogenic RF. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are virtually certain to have induced a positive RF, while emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are likely to have induced a net negative RF (see Figure SPM.5). {8.3, 8.5}
• The RF of the total aerosol effect in the atmosphere, which includes cloud adjustments due to aerosols, is –0.9 [–1.9 to −0.1] W m−2 (medium confidence), and results from a negative forcing from most aerosols and a positive contribution SPM Summary for Policymakers 12 from black carbon absorption of solar radiation. There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases. They continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to the total RF estimate. {7.5, 8.3, 8.5}
• The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for some years after volcanic eruptions. Several small eruptions have caused an RF of –0.11 [–0.15 to –0.08] W m–2 for the years 2008 to 2011, which is approximately twice as strong as during the years 1999 to 2002. {8.4}
• The RF due to changes in solar irradiance is estimated as 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes from 1978 to 2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in an RF of –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between the most recent minimum in 2008 and the 1986 minimum. {8.4}
• The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}
Skipping down a bit
C. Drivers of Climate Change
Natural and anthropogenic substances and processes that alter the Earth’s energy budget are drivers of climate change. Radiative forcing14 (RF) quantifies the change in energy fluxes caused by changes in these drivers for 2011 relative to 1750, unless otherwise indicated. Positive RF leads to surface warming, negative RF leads to surface cooling. RF is estimated based on in-situ and remote observations, properties of greenhouse gases and aerosols, and calculations using numerical models representing observed processes. Some emitted compounds affect the atmospheric concentration of other substances. The RF can be reported based on the concentration changes of each substance15. Alternatively, the emission-based RF of a compound can be reported, which provides a more direct link to human activities. It includes contributions from all substances affected by that emission. The total anthropogenic RF of the two approaches are identical when considering all drivers. Though both approaches are used in this Summary for Policymakers, emission-based RFs are emphasized.
• The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), and it has increased more rapidly since 1970 than during prior decades. The total anthropogenic RF best estimate for 2011 is 43% higher than that reported in AR4 for the year 2005. This is caused by a combination of continued growth in most greenhouse gas concentrations and improved estimates of RF by aerosols indicating a weaker net cooling effect (negative RF). {8.5}
• The RF from emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, N2O, and Halocarbons) for 2011 relative to 1750 is 3.00 [2.22 to 3.78] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). The RF from changes in concentrations in these gases is 2.83 [2.26 to 3.40] W m–2. {8.5}
• Emissions of CO2 alone have caused an RF of 1.68 [1.33 to 2.03] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.5). Including emissions of other carbon-containing gases, which also contributed to the increase in CO2 concentrations, the RF of CO2 is 1.82 [1.46 to 2.18] W m–2. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of CH4 alone have caused an RF of 0.97 [0.74 to 1.20] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). This is much larger than the concentration-based estimate of 0.48 [0.38 to 0.58] W m−2 (unchanged from AR4). This difference in estimates is caused by concentration changes in ozone and stratospheric water vapour due to CH4 emissions and other emissions indirectly affecting CH4. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting halocarbons have caused a net positive RF of 0.18 [0.01 to 0.35] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Their own positive RF has outweighed the negative RF from the ozone depletion that they have induced. The positive RF from all halocarbons is similar to the value in AR4, with a reduced RF from CFCs but increases from many of their substitutes. {8.3, 8.5}
• Emissions of short-lived gases contribute to the total anthropogenic RF. Emissions of carbon monoxide (CO) are virtually certain to have induced a positive RF, while emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are likely to have induced a net negative RF (see Figure SPM.5). {8.3, 8.5}
• The RF of the total aerosol effect in the atmosphere, which includes cloud adjustments due to aerosols, is –0.9 [–1.9 to −0.1] W m−2 (medium confidence), and results from a negative forcing from most aerosols and a positive contribution SPM Summary for Policymakers 12 from black carbon absorption of solar radiation. There is high confidence that aerosols and their interactions with clouds have offset a substantial portion of global mean forcing from well-mixed greenhouse gases. They continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to the total RF estimate. {7.5, 8.3, 8.5}
• The forcing from stratospheric volcanic aerosols can have a large impact on the climate for some years after volcanic eruptions. Several small eruptions have caused an RF of –0.11 [–0.15 to –0.08] W m–2 for the years 2008 to 2011, which is approximately twice as strong as during the years 1999 to 2002. {8.4}
• The RF due to changes in solar irradiance is estimated as 0.05 [0.00 to 0.10] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5). Satellite observations of total solar irradiance changes from 1978 to 2011 indicate that the last solar minimum was lower than the previous two. This results in an RF of –0.04 [–0.08 to 0.00] W m–2 between the most recent minimum in 2008 and the 1986 minimum. {8.4}
• The total natural RF from solar irradiance changes and stratospheric volcanic aerosols made only a small contribution to the net radiative forcing throughout the last century, except for brief periods after large volcanic eruptions. {8.5}
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Oh now we are talking :climate change" in a thread about scientist thinking sea levels are rising faster than normal.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
There is NO research showing a correlation between global temperatures over the last 150 years and changes in total solar irradiance (TSI) either due to changes in solar processes or via orbital mechanics. None.
Solar irradiance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article needs attention from an expert on the subject. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. Consider associating this request with a WikiProject. (July 2015)
Solar irradiance (also Insolation, from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun)[1][2] is the power per unit area produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Irradiance may be measured in space or at the Earth's surface after atmospheric absorption and scattering. Total solar irradiance (TSI), is a measure of the solar radiative power per unit area normal to the rays, incident on the Earth's upper atmosphere. The solar constant is a conventional measure of mean TSI at a distance of one Astronomical Unit (AU). Irradiance is a function of distance from the Sun, the solar cycle, and cross-cycle changes.[3] Irradiance on Earth is most intense at points directly facing (normal to) the Sun.
So you basically are stating there is no correlation between global temperatures and electromagnetic radiation from the sun over the last 150 yrs.
What does that have to do with : MAN, THIS THREAD or GLOBAL WARMING??
You got to stop throwing out everything including the kitchen sink, you are making a fool of yourself with these irrelevant statements.
My point was that even if warming has slowed since 1998 (and I do not believe that it has), the Earth has certainly warmed at an unprecedented rate over the last 150 years. If you plan on rejecting the greenhouse effect and neither the sun nor our orbital parameters have altered in a way that could possibly have produced the warming observed, you're left a bit short of a cause.
That was my point.
That was my point.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
My point was that even if warming has slowed since 1998 (and I do not believe that it has), the Earth has certainly warmed at an unprecedented rate over the last 150 years. If you plan on rejecting the greenhouse effect and neither the sun nor our orbital parameters have altered in a way that could possibly have produced the warming observed, you're left a bit short of a cause.
That was my point.
You have proved no reliable method of accurately producing global temprature records past the 150 year mark, so there fore have no valid comparison.
Temperature changes on earth have been happening for eons and will continue to do so.
You have no scientific evidence to prove other wise or that man has influenced any of this.
So you see, I simply need no explanation for something non scientific parrots are making a big deal of ..............
The sky is falling, the sky is falling ....................
Your logic comes up a bit short, you have proved nothing except you can not debate without senseless mumbo jumbo ...............
Oh now we are talking :climate change" in a thread about scientist thinking sea levels are rising faster than normal
Why do you think sea levels are rising?.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
No, we don't. The world is still warming and sea levels are still rising.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
Which is why they are rising
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Where?
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
I'm beginning to think you're irremediable.
If solar irradiance increases were causing warming, the stratosphere would be warming.
Instead, the stratosphere is cooling. That's not a model. We directly measure how the stratosphere is cooling.
Hence, the "it's the sun!" theory is conclusively disproved. Only the most flagrantly dishonest partisan cranks will still cling to it.
I'd like to see DrDoom explain why he clings to his debunked fantasy, but it's more likely he'll turn and run now, just repeat his same debunked nonsense later somewhere else, knowing full well it's complete nonsense. TheParty told him what to say, so he's going to say it.
Instead, the stratosphere is cooling. That's not a model. We directly measure how the stratosphere is cooling.
Hence, the "it's the sun!" theory is conclusively disproved. Only the most flagrantly dishonest partisan cranks will still cling to it.
I'd like to see DrDoom explain why he clings to his debunked fantasy, but it's more likely he'll turn and run now, just repeat his same debunked nonsense later somewhere else, knowing full well it's complete nonsense. TheParty told him what to say, so he's going to say it.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
I don't think the doctor has made any of those contentions.
You create your own straw man to burn.......................
You create your own straw man to burn.......................
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
Dr Doom, are you or are you not accusing me of plagiarism? If so, where?
Last edited:
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
Oh now we are talking :climate change" in a thread about scientist thinking sea levels are rising faster than normal
Why do you think sea levels are rising?.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
No, we don't. The world is still warming and sea levels are still rising.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
Which is why they are rising
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Where?
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
I'm beginning to think you're irremediable.
Dr Doom, are you or are you not accusing me of plagiarism? If so, where?
Post #122, did you site a source with hypertext link as per forum rules??
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
What you gonna get petty now, I waded through that pile of Bull shit you spewed and now you want to start attacking me??
Grow up son
Grow up son
Oh now we are talking :climate change" in a thread about scientist thinking sea levels are rising faster than normal
Why do you think sea levels are rising?.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
No, we don't. The world is still warming and sea levels are still rising.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
Which is why they are rising
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Where?
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
I'm beginning to think you're irremediable.
Dr Doom, are you or are you not accusing me of plagiarism? If so, where?
Post #122, did you site a source with hypertext link as per forum rules??
The first line of that post identifies it as coming from the SPM of AR5. Do you not know what that is? And plagiarism would require that I claim that the work was mine. Since my very first act in that post is to identify the actual source, that's a little hard to support.
You owe me an apology.
- Dec 18, 2013
- 136,363
- 27,905
- 2,180
Crickster, climate ain't your thing.Oh now we are talking :climate change" in a thread about scientist thinking sea levels are rising faster than normal
Why do you think sea levels are rising?.
That means with global warming water was rising, now that that shit has been discredited we move on to climate change or global cooling.
No, we don't. The world is still warming and sea levels are still rising.
So now the water level must be falling as we all know things expand when hot and contract when cold.
Which is why they are rising
By the way posting of others work without source is plagiarism.
Are you accusing me of plagiarism? Where?
It is totally irrelevant to the thread and another attempt to "snow job" the readers with nonsense.
I'm beginning to think you're irremediable.
Dr Doom, are you or are you not accusing me of plagiarism? If so, where?
Post #122, did you site a source with hypertext link as per forum rules??
The first line of that post identifies it as coming from the SPM of AR5. Do you not know what that is? And plagiarism would require that I claim that the work was mine. Since my very first act in that post is to identify the actual source, that's a little hard to support.
You owe me an apology.
If solar irradiance increases were causing warming, the stratosphere would be warming.
Instead, the stratosphere is cooling. That's not a model. We directly measure how the stratosphere is cooling.
Hence, the "it's the sun!" theory is conclusively disproved. Only the most flagrantly dishonest partisan cranks will still cling to it.
I'd like to see DrDoom explain why he clings to his debunked fantasy, but it's more likely he'll turn and run now, just repeat his same debunked nonsense later somewhere else, knowing full well it's complete nonsense. TheParty told him what to say, so he's going to say it.
Why would the stratosphere get warm?
Old Rocks
Diamond Member
Real science from real scientists;
Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections
Not internet fakes.
Vertical Human Fingerprint Found in Stratospheric Cooling Tropospheric Warming - Yale Climate Connections
Not internet fakes.
DrDoomNGloom
Gold Member
If solar irradiance increases were causing warming, the stratosphere would be warming.
From Wikipedia
Solar irradiance (also Insolation, from Latin insolare, to expose to the sun) is the power per unit area produced by the Sun in the form of electromagnetic radiation. Irradiance may be measured in space or at the Earth's surface after atmospheric absorption and scattering.
You know the sun been shining on the stratosphere since the dawn of time, don't figure things have changed much since then. You seem to agree.
Instead, the stratosphere is cooling. That's not a model. We directly measure how the stratosphere is cooling.
Hence, the "it's the sun!" theory is conclusively disproved. Only the most flagrantly dishonest partisan cranks will still cling to it.
So you are now arguing global cooling instead of global warming??
Who is referring to the "It's the Sun"??
In connection with what??
You are a partisan crank to imply that anyone has made any allusions to that theory but you.
Why would you bring it up in this conversation??
I'd like to see DrDoom explain why he clings to his debunked fantasy, but it's more likely he'll turn and run now, just repeat his same debunked nonsense later somewhere else, knowing full well it's complete nonsense. TheParty told him what to say, so he's going to say it.
What fantasy do you speak of, that I made some reference to your aforementioned delusion??
Please produce that quote? To whatever you are referring to.
What party??
You seem to be the one telling lies, please elaborate with quotes of me ........................
Last edited:
Its the first thing sunlight hits.
And what exactly is up there? How much of it is there? What sort of molecular motion can you get with what is up there?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 646
- Views
- 7K
- Replies
- 63
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 221
- Views
- 5K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 7K
- Views
- 49K
- Replies
- 47
- Views
- 240
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8040
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-