Climate Scientist Warns Sea Levels Are Rising Faster Than We Thought

[DrDoomNGloom]

First of all you do realize that the rotation of the earth is tied to our calendar year??

Damn, that's stupid.

The earth doesn't care about our calendar. It does what it does. We adjust the calendar to match the behavior of the earth.

From Wikipedia
The Earth rotates once in about 24 hours with respect to the sun and once every 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds with respect to the stars (see below). Earth's rotation is slowing slightly with time; thus, a day was shorter in the past. This is due to the tidal effects the Moon has on Earth's rotation. Atomic clocks show that a modern day is longer by about 1.7 milliseconds than a century ago,[2] slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.

You understand how you're humiliating all the other deniers here by association, right? They wish you'd shut up and stop embarrassing them.

No you be the one looking stupid by association, what was that assertions about rotational speed and global warming??

Too bad, you have no clue about real science .............

From Wikipedia
Changes in rotation
Main articles: Fluctuations in the length of day and ΔT


Earth's axial tilt is about 23.4°. It oscillates between 22.1° and 24.5° on a 41,000-year cycle and is currently decreasing.


Deviation of day length from SI based day, 1962–2015
The Earth's rotation axis moves with respect to the fixed stars (inertial space); the components of this motion are precession and nutation. The Earth's crust also moves with respect to the Earth's rotation axis; this is called polar motion.

Precession is a rotation of the Earth's rotation axis, caused primarily by external torques from the gravity of the Sun, Moon and other bodies. The polar motion is primarily due to free core nutation and the Chandler wobble.

Over millions of years, the rotation is significantly slowed by gravitational interactions with the Moon; both rotational energy and angular momentum are being slowly transferred to the Moon: see tidal acceleration. However some large scale events, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, have caused the rotation to speed up by around 3 microseconds by affecting the Earth's moment of inertia.[40] Post-glacial rebound, ongoing since the last Ice age, is also changing the distribution of the Earth's mass thus affecting the moment of inertia of the Earth and, by the conservation of angular momentum, the Earth's rotation period.[41]

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Post-glacial rebound
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This layered beach at Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut is an example of post-glacial rebound after the last Ice Age. Little to no tide helped to form its layer-cake look. Isostatic rebound is still underway here.


A model of present-day mass change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of the ocean basins with seawater. Blue and purple areas indicate rising due to the removal of the ice sheets. Yellow and red areas indicate falling as mantle material moved away from these areas in order to supply the rising areas, and because of the collapse of the forebulges around the ice sheets.
Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostatic depression. Post-glacial rebound and isostatic depression are different parts of a process known as either glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment, or glacioisostasy. Glacioisostasy is the solid Earth deformation associated with changes in ice mass distribution.[1] The most obvious and direct affects of post-glacial rebound are readily apparent in northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Latvia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica. However, through processes known as ocean siphoning and continental levering, the affects of post-glacial rebound on sea-level are felt globally far from the locations of current and former ice sheets.

 

[mamooth]

slowly increasing the rate at which UTC is adjusted by leap seconds.

Leap seconds would be the way we adjust the calendar to match the changes in the earth's rotation rate.

I don't know what else to say. You declare the opposite it true, and that the calendar controls the rotation of the earth. Theories about space aliens look sensible in comparison to your babbling.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

So when was the last time they added a day to our calendar.

The point was, rotational speed is only effected by milliseconds which you can not tie to global warming.

End of discussion no matter how much you want to try and attack me.

What did your rambling shit have to do with rising sea levels??

 

[westwall]

Post-glacial rebound
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This layered beach at Bathurst Inlet, Nunavut is an example of post-glacial rebound after the last Ice Age. Little to no tide helped to form its layer-cake look. Isostatic rebound is still underway here.


A model of present-day mass change due to post-glacial rebound and the reloading of the ocean basins with seawater. Blue and purple areas indicate rising due to the removal of the ice sheets. Yellow and red areas indicate falling as mantle material moved away from these areas in order to supply the rising areas, and because of the collapse of the forebulges around the ice sheets.
Post-glacial rebound (sometimes called continental rebound) is the rise of land masses that were depressed by the huge weight of ice sheets during the last glacial period, through a process known as isostatic depression. Post-glacial rebound and isostatic depression are different parts of a process known as either glacial isostasy, glacial isostatic adjustment, or glacioisostasy. Glacioisostasy is the solid Earth deformation associated with changes in ice mass distribution.[1] The most obvious and direct affects of post-glacial rebound are readily apparent in northern Europe (especially Scotland, Estonia, Latvia, Fennoscandia, and northern Denmark), Siberia, Canada, the Great Lakes of Canada and the United States, the coastal region of the US state of Maine, parts of Patagonia, and Antarctica. However, through processes known as ocean siphoning and continental levering, the affects of post-glacial rebound on sea-level are felt globally far from the locations of current and former ice sheets.

Isostatic rebound is still occurring wherever continental ice sheets existed. The process is just extremely well shown in this locality.

 

[skookerasbil]

Dang.........some of these threads.........I read the responses by these people and think, "Jesus.....what the fuck happened to these people?"


Its fascinating to me...........we have people actually posting up links about "day-length fluctuations"

 

[September]

Whether or not one believes in global warming or a significant human impact on climate change is irrelevant. Just show the planet some respect! Appreciate its beauty and do your best not to be a like a plague upon the earth.​

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Observations Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level - Library Open Repository

LIBRARY OPEN REPOSITORY
Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level


Abstract
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0– 3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has been some cooling.

http://www.epa-pictaural.com/ctr/m/cc/transcript/stocker.pdf

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

And if you now take this physical based look on global change, an energy
based look, you could argue the most fundamental way how to look at climate
change, this change is very obvious. The ocean is recording and storing that
information for us, the ocean water can, due to its heat capacity, take up a lot
of heat, and that can be measured very precisely, looking at temperature.
And isn’t it paradoxical? We are always fixated on measuring the
temperatures at the surface of the earth, admittedly an important parameter.
But in terms of energy it’s simply not relevant as you see in this graph. The
accumulation of energy in the climate system amounts to 70m twh over the
past 40 years. And this is a huge number, and I will just give you one other
number. It’s 500 times more than the world’s energy consumption in one
year. This accumulation is caused by the increase of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere.
And here I show a figure that has been measured at our institute, asking
Antarctic ice cores as to the concentration of carbon dioxide over the past
800,000 years. This is a record that you see demonstrates that carbon
dioxide naturally varies in the climate system. This is not a constant quantity.
Over the past 800,000 years it has varied within very clear bounds. But in the
past 250 years we have gone out of these bounds. The concentration in the
year 2013 was actually 30% higher than any concentration that the climate
system has experienced in the past 800,000 years.
And in fact we can make that other headline statement that says that “These
levels of carbon dioxide have been unprecedented in that time period.” Now
the reason why this increase has happened is the burning of fossil fuel by
man, plus deforestation and to a minor extent the production of cement.

Now Dr., you make a lot of flap yap claims, yet provide no backup for any of them. How about backing your claims with credible sources? Watts, obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords are not credible sources.

But you still can't replicate this imaginary warming from a 30% increase in CO2 in a lab, right?

 

[Old Rocks]

Wrong, silly ass. The lab we are presently running the experiment in is the whole of our planet. And if we don't like the outcome of the experiment, too fucking bad, we are stuck with it.

 

[jc456]

Observations Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level - Library Open Repository

LIBRARY OPEN REPOSITORY
Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Level


Abstract
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. Consistent with the Third Assessment Report (TAR), global ocean heat content (0– 3,000 m) has increased during the same period, equivalent to absorbing energy at a rate of 0.21 ± 0.04 W m–2 globally averaged over the Earth’s surface. Two-thirds of this energy is absorbed between the surface and a depth of 700 m. Global ocean heat content observations show considerable interannual and inter-decadal variability superimposed on the longer-term trend. Relative to 1961 to 2003, the period 1993 to 2003 has high rates of warming but since 2003 there has been some cooling.

http://www.epa-pictaural.com/ctr/m/cc/transcript/stocker.pdf

Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis

And if you now take this physical based look on global change, an energy
based look, you could argue the most fundamental way how to look at climate
change, this change is very obvious. The ocean is recording and storing that
information for us, the ocean water can, due to its heat capacity, take up a lot
of heat, and that can be measured very precisely, looking at temperature.
And isn’t it paradoxical? We are always fixated on measuring the
temperatures at the surface of the earth, admittedly an important parameter.
But in terms of energy it’s simply not relevant as you see in this graph. The
accumulation of energy in the climate system amounts to 70m twh over the
past 40 years. And this is a huge number, and I will just give you one other
number. It’s 500 times more than the world’s energy consumption in one
year. This accumulation is caused by the increase of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere.
And here I show a figure that has been measured at our institute, asking
Antarctic ice cores as to the concentration of carbon dioxide over the past
800,000 years. This is a record that you see demonstrates that carbon
dioxide naturally varies in the climate system. This is not a constant quantity.
Over the past 800,000 years it has varied within very clear bounds. But in the
past 250 years we have gone out of these bounds. The concentration in the
year 2013 was actually 30% higher than any concentration that the climate
system has experienced in the past 800,000 years.
And in fact we can make that other headline statement that says that “These
levels of carbon dioxide have been unprecedented in that time period.” Now
the reason why this increase has happened is the burning of fossil fuel by
man, plus deforestation and to a minor extent the production of cement.

Now Dr., you make a lot of flap yap claims, yet provide no backup for any of them. How about backing your claims with credible sources? Watts, obese junkies on the AM radio, and fake British Lords are not credible sources.

But you still can't replicate this imaginary warming from a 30% increase in CO2 in a lab, right?

Nope, seventeen months still nadda.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

How about it old fraud, you can't carry water in this conversation.

What was that about CO2 and rising oceans again??

How does the gas effect that big ole ocean fool??

Come on back with another of those drunk ignorant rants ......................

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Wrong, silly ass. The lab we are presently running the experiment in is the whole of our planet. And if we don't like the outcome of the experiment, too fucking bad, we are stuck with it.

That's not science, Dear.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Message:

If it ain't DIRECTLY about measuring sea level or it's predictions --- it will be deleted or warned.
Leave the personal crap out please.. Each thread has a topic. Stick to it..

 

[mamooth]

So when was the last time they added a day to our calendar.

You want me to do your research _again_? Everyone is getting tired of trying to educate your lazy ass.

Oh, 1582 is the answer. At that point, they fine-tuned it pretty well, and only leap seconds were needed later. Point is, the calendar is still corrected to follow the earth. It is not, as you claim, that the earth is obligated to follow the calendar.

The point was, rotational speed is only effected by milliseconds which you can not tie to global warming.

And over a thousand years, it all adds up to hours. Which certainly is measurable, and does reflect when the sea level rise happened. You refusing to believe it falls under the "fallacy of incredulity."

Oh, here's one of the studies.

Long-Term Fluctuations in the Earth s Rotation 700 BC to AD 1990 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences

Here's another interesting one about the Roman fish holding tanks that still exist. Because they're underwater now, and because we know the isostatic changes of that area, we know sea level is up by about 1.35 meters since Roman times.

Sea level in Roman time in the Central Mediterranean and implications for recent change

End of discussion no matter how much you want to try and attack me.

What did your rambling shit have to do with rising sea levels??

You obviously haven't learned yet that crying about how meeeeaaaaan that awful mamooth is just encourages me. Just try to take getting whupped like a man. If you had some class, you'd even be thanking the people here for taking time out to educate you.

 

[Old Rocks]

A 2013 paper based on fake data .................


No even accepted by main stream academia or scientist as not being fictitious.

Now you are telling outright lies.

Official URL: http://www.cambridge.org/uk/catalogue/catalogue.as...

And the second is a lecture from an EPA scientist. You people are hopeless as far as understanding science or being able to tell the truth.

That first paper goes into depth on the affect of a warming ocean on sea level, among other things.

 

[Old Rocks]

A 2013 paper based on fake data .................


No even accepted by main stream academia or scientist as not being fictitious.

Actually it's even worse than that. Not only do they use falsified data, they then use those numbers to populate the "data" sets they use to write the code for........MODELS!. This whole "paper" is a series of computer models of shit quality that are based on shit data.

From olfrauds link....

"Now we cannot go back as an experimental physicist would naturally do when they want to understand processes. We would go back to the beginning of the 20th century and re-do the experiment but we would just stop the emissions of fossil fuels and see what happens with the temperature. That would be really a telling experiment. But we can do almost as good as that by using comprehensive climate models and carry out that experiment on the computer.


Now you should know that these models have been forced by the information of a changing atmospheric condition in terms of greenhouse gases. So the information that carbon dioxide has increased, has been used by these model simulations, as well as the fact that some volcanic eruptions have happened in the past 150 years. That is also information that these models have available. As you see for example in these blips that occur here frequently in the record and in the model simulations. Now because this is quite good agreement that we find between the models and the observations we say, rather cautiously, models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades."


It is amazing that people who supposedly are so smart, haven't figured out that models aren't data, and that when they use actual data, that has been falsified, they are merely talking about science fiction and fraud....but not science.

OK, Mr. Westwall. You constantly harp on models. Yet every equation we use in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology is just a model. It is not reality, and often fails to model reality exactly. However, it does much better than guesses pulled out of the asses of amateurs.

 

[westwall]

A 2013 paper based on fake data .................


No even accepted by main stream academia or scientist as not being fictitious.

Actually it's even worse than that. Not only do they use falsified data, they then use those numbers to populate the "data" sets they use to write the code for........MODELS!. This whole "paper" is a series of computer models of shit quality that are based on shit data.

From olfrauds link....

"Now we cannot go back as an experimental physicist would naturally do when they want to understand processes. We would go back to the beginning of the 20th century and re-do the experiment but we would just stop the emissions of fossil fuels and see what happens with the temperature. That would be really a telling experiment. But we can do almost as good as that by using comprehensive climate models and carry out that experiment on the computer.


Now you should know that these models have been forced by the information of a changing atmospheric condition in terms of greenhouse gases. So the information that carbon dioxide has increased, has been used by these model simulations, as well as the fact that some volcanic eruptions have happened in the past 150 years. That is also information that these models have available. As you see for example in these blips that occur here frequently in the record and in the model simulations. Now because this is quite good agreement that we find between the models and the observations we say, rather cautiously, models reproduce observed continental-scale surface temperature patterns and trends over many decades."


It is amazing that people who supposedly are so smart, haven't figured out that models aren't data, and that when they use actual data, that has been falsified, they are merely talking about science fiction and fraud....but not science.

OK, Mr. Westwall. You constantly harp on models. Yet every equation we use in physics, chemistry, biology, and geology is just a model. It is not reality, and often fails to model reality exactly. However, it does much better than guesses pulled out of the asses of amateurs.

I harp on SHITTY models. You people think that models with no basis in reality are somehow relevant to the subject but as has been shown on occasion after occasion the models that the climatologists have created are utter shit. They have NO basis in reality. They are admittedly simple models and all of you grant them magical abilities. Abilities that have NEVER come to fruition.

Here's the deal, the type of models I am used to working with are geared to ONE subject. They are also incredibly expensive and complex. The ones I am referring to are dealing with computational fluid dynamics and are specifically geared to aerodynamics. Period. They have a few very well known variables that have been determined through experiment over 100 years of solid research. They are used to design parts for aircraft and race cars. They cost MILLIONS of dollars to create and the people who run them are likewise paid millions to do so.

And they fail all the time. They will use the CFD programs to design a part. They will then build the part, put it on the car or aircraft and then test the full scale model in a wind tunnel. And more often than not, the part fails to deliver. These are the best and brightest in the field and their very existence is predicated on their being able to produce a winning design.

Climatologists on the other hand suffer no problems when they fail, as they have every single time. They have NEVER had a model that gave results even close to reality, they are cheap, and the people running them are incompetent at best.

Congrats. If you were in the racing arena you would be out of a job.

 

[Old Rocks]

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Every single one, right? As usual, you are lying, and don't give a damn even when you are caught multiple times in the same lie.

 

[westwall]

Pubs.GISS Hansen et al. 1981 Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide

Hansen et al. 1981
Hansen, J., D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff, P. Lee, D. Rind, and G. Russell, 1981: Climate impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide. Science, 213, 957-966, doi:10.1126/science.213.4511.957.

The global temperature rose 0.2°C between the middle 1960s and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980s. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

Every single one, right? As usual, you are lying, and don't give a damn even when you are caught multiple times in the same lie.

Only a true fool thinks that a 300% error is "accurate". Wake up clown boy.

 

[Crick]

Only a fool thinks he can get away with a bald-faced lie.