Sea levels rise by 'unexpected' amount in 2024: NASA

[abu afak]

.......

Snapshots of mean ocean temperature over the last 700 000 years using noble gases in the EPICA Dome C ice core​

Abstract. Together with the latent heat stored in glacial ice sheets, the ocean heat uptake carries the lion's share of glacial–interglacial changes in the planetary heat content, but little direct information on the global mean ocean temperature (MOT) is available to constrain the ocean...

cp.copernicus.org
View attachment 1111887

YOUR Link Continues

"..In contrast to Today's Warming, where Radiative forcing is Caused through Anthropogenic Emissions of CO2, past climate cycles are generally believed to have been driven by orbital changes in the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation (Milankovic, 1941), with changing greenhouse gas concentrations representing an important amplifying feedback."..."
- - - - - - -

That's what happens you Finally source/Link a graph!
LOFL you Dishonest Clown.
Now you try it aga!n when you think I'm not around.


Ding is NOT conversant but deceptive.
He now Knowingly RE-USES a LINK/Graph which Refutes him when He thinks he can get away with it
It's either One line and/or one Picture from Nowhere which doesn't say what He says it does.

Have a Nice page.

`

 

[toobfreak]

Exactly ... SB closely fits Earth's surface ...

But Earth has TWO surfaces, the solid tectonic surface above water, and the hydraulic surfaces of the oceans.

... no mention of hysteresis ...

Why should there be? The actions of hysteresis would be written into the modeling code, wouldn't it?

There's no "storage" time in SB ... except to perform the work involved ... energy flows from excess to lack instantaneously ...

Of course there is storage of energy, it would be a contradiction of physics for there not to be. To argue otherwise is to be ridiculous. Why are you trying to make me responsible for your lack of understanding? Why don't you instead just go out and try to learn more.

Worse, you first say there is no storage time, then you contradict yourself be saying there IS storage time to perform necessary work, then the coup de grace is your claim that energy acts instantly, now conflicting even with relativistic theory. Ouch.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

 

[ReinyDays]

You're too simple I don't know the science and from just this I know that the ocean HOLDS 4 times as much heat as the air.

Then educate yourself ... Specific heat capacity - Wikipedia ...

 

[ReinyDays]

But Earth has TWO surfaces, the solid tectonic surface above water, and the hydraulic surfaces of the oceans.


Why should there be? The actions of hysteresis would be written into the modeling code, wouldn't it?


Of course there is storage of energy, it would be a contradiction of physics for there not to be. To argue otherwise is to be ridiculous. Why are you trying to make me responsible for your lack of understanding? Why don't you instead just go out and try to learn more.

Worse, you first say there is no storage time, then you contradict yourself be saying there IS storage time to perform necessary work, then the coup de grace is your claim that energy acts instantly, now conflicting even with relativistic theory. Ouch.

Ouch, ouch, ouch.

Now your reaching ... "two surfaces" ... next is chem-trails right? ...

And your delving into ad hominem attacks ... shame on you ... here we've been discussing ideas and now you have to turn to personal insults to get your way ...

hysteresis would be written into the modeling code, wouldn't it?
it would be a contradiction of physics for there not to be.

Obviously not, or you'd explain how ... please please tell us the physics you're relying on here ...

I've maintained from the beginning the delay while work is being performed ... IIRC about 0.4 seconds on average ... do you not read well? ... maybe it's a damn strawman you've been ignorantly arguing with ...

I NEVER used the word "instantly" ... now you lie ... the term used in physics and mathematics is "instantaneously" ... as in Newton's 2nd Law of Motion "force is equal to mass times the instantaneous change in velocity with respect to time" ...

F = m dv/dt

I guess you didn't take any calculus classes ... because that's a real foolish mistake you just made ... take a college science class, maybe learn how to read a scientific instrument ...

But if you change my words so you can argue ... that's fraud ... and that's a choice ...

 

[ding]

YOUR Link Continues

"..In contrast to Today's Warming, where Radiative forcing is Caused through Anthropogenic Emissions of CO2, past climate cycles are generally believed to have been driven by orbital changes in the latitudinal and seasonal distribution of incoming solar radiation (Milankovic, 1941), with changing greenhouse gas concentrations representing an important amplifying feedback."..."
- - - - - - -

That's what happens you Finally source/Link a graph!
LOFL you Dishonest Clown.
Now you try it aga!n when you think I'm not around.


Ding is NOT conversant but deceptive.
He now Knowingly RE-USES a LINK/Graph which Refutes him when He thinks he can get away with it
It's either One line and/or one Picture from Nowhere which doesn't say what He says it does.

Have a Nice page.

`

Yes, the link did say that. The radiative forcing of CO2 is 1C per doubling of CO2 which is effectively immaterial compared to the natural warming from a deglaciating northern hemisphere.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Now your reaching ... "two surfaces" ... next is chem-trails right? ...

And your delving into ad hominem attacks ... shame on you ... here we've been discussing ideas and now you have to turn to personal insults to get your way ...

hysteresis would be written into the modeling code, wouldn't it?
it would be a contradiction of physics for there not to be.

Obviously not, or you'd explain how ... please please tell us the physics you're relying on here ...

I've maintained from the beginning the delay while work is being performed ... IIRC about 0.4 seconds on average ... do you not read well? ... maybe it's a damn strawman you've been ignorantly arguing with ...

I NEVER used the word "instantly" ... now you lie ... the term used in physics and mathematics is "instantaneously" ... as in Newton's 2nd Law of Motion "force is equal to mass times the instantaneous change in velocity with respect to time" ...

F = m dv/dt

I guess you didn't take any calculus classes ... because that's a real foolish mistake you just made ... take a college science class, maybe learn how to read a scientific instrument ...

But if you change my words so you can argue ... that's fraud ... and that's a choice ...

what is the difference between instantly and instantaneously? Talk about fraud.

 

[Rambunctious]

I've been to the north shore of Oahu a dozen times... there is a place I rent when I go right on the coast... I walk a very narrow strip of sand that is in front of the homes that line that part of the coast... the size of that strip of sand has been the same for years... no encroachment what so ever... if this NASA news was real wouldn't we be able to see it?....

 

[ding]

Ding is NOT conversant but deceptive.
He now Knowingly RE-USES a LINK/Graph which Refutes him when He thinks he can get away with it
It's either One line and/or one Picture from Nowhere which doesn't say what He says it does.

Where did all of your friends go?

 

[ReinyDays]

what is the difference between instantly and instantaneously? Talk about fraud.

In mathematics ... "instantly" occurs over 0 seconds ... a photon is "instantly" re-directed when it reflects ... no time elapses during the event and there's no exchange of energy ... "instantaneously" occurs at the differential of time, dt ... in this case, we're speaking about the application of power, "energy per unit time" ... time must pass for energy to move ... and vise versa ...

Physics 101 ... you should know this already ... or have you never taken a college science class? ... c'mon, the State of California expects her teenage children to understand this ... why doesn't your State? ...

ETA: Simply stated, we can't "store" water in a colander ... ask any Pastafarian ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Where did all of your friends go?

They were all caught and rounded up for a trip back to the loony home.

 

[Redfish]

Nobody cares about the 3mm....

View attachment 1110002

funny to watch the ignorant libs disagree with facts.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Sea levels rise by 'unexpected' amount in 2024: NASA

Global sea levels rose more than expected in 2024, Earth's hottest year on record, according to an analysis released Thursday by the US space agency NASA.

www.france24.com

On its website, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration explained that last year's increase "was due to an unusual amount of ocean warming, combined with meltwater from land-based ice such as glaciers."

According to the analysis led by NASA, which monitors rising water levels using satellite imagery, the world's seas rose by 0.23 inches (0.59 centimeters) in 2024, well above the 0.17 inches (0.43 cm) predicted by scientists.

"Every year is a little bit different, but what's clear is that the ocean continues to rise, and the rate of rise is getting faster and faster," said researcher Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

Rising sea levels are among the consequences of human-induced climate change, and oceans have risen in line with the increase in the Earth's average surface temperature -- a change which itself is caused by greenhouse gas emissions.

So, a rounding error that's inconsequential.

But that doesn't matter; Its definitely my fault and I should spend my life paying higher taxes and eschewing the western standard of living to combat that canard.

If you live near the ocean just look at the ramps and pilings that have been in the same place for 75 years or more....Still there with the rise and fall of the tides as usual.

I've been propping my fishing pole on the same piling on the outer banks for 40+ years and it's not underwater yet.

Hopefully Trump gets shed of the CC weenies at NASA like he did NOAA.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[ReinyDays]

View attachment 1120549

St Michael's really shows what beach erosion looks like as sea levels retreat ... see where the profile makes an abrupt change, that's where the waves were crashing before ... forming the gentle slope that's exposed today ... just a short 10,000 years ago, sea levels were much higher ...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

St Michael's really shows what beach erosion looks like as sea levels retreat ... see where the profile makes an abrupt change, that's where the waves were crashing before ... forming the gentle slope that's exposed today ... just a short 10,000 years ago, sea levels were much higher ...

…which can only mean that American Internal Combustion Engines are far older than we’ve been told

 

[CrusaderFrank]

 

[Donald H]

4 inches from 92 to 2022 average. Not to suggest that it's not much more in some places and less in others. That's just too complicate to try to explain here.

Along with most would rather not know.

 

[ding]

4 inches from 92 to 2022 average. Not to suggest that it's not much more in some places and less in others. That's just too complicate to try to explain here.

Along with most would rather not know.

3 to 4 mm per year for the past 6,000 years.

 

[Delldude]

That's just too complicate to try to explain here.

Expansion of seawater from warming, melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

 

[ding]

Expansion of seawater from warming, melting of glaciers and ice sheets.

A rapid rise at the end of the last glacial period which leveled off about 6,000 years ago. Hasn’t changed much since.