So the Oceans are rising are they?

[westwall]

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level around the world. At the end of this century or in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20 feet according to scientists .

According to Hansen in a prediction he made over 15 years ago parts of New York should allready be under water. He was wrong then, and your pseudo scientists are wrong now.
No "prediction" they have ever made has occurred. They allways couch their "predictions in "coulds", and "May's" and "Might's" which means they are not predictions.

Of course I am not touching on the fact that they "predict" both sides of every possibility. When you do that you can never be wrong. That too invalidates anything they say.

 

[westwall]

​

And here is a link to the American Institute of Physics site concerning GHGs, CO2 in particular.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion. For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.

Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.

I guess you forgot that the American Institute of Physics is a charter school for poor students who can't do math. olfraud is probably one of their dropouts.

 

[Old Rocks]

Glaciers and ice sheets on opposite ends of the Earth are melting faster than previously thought, rising see level around the world. At the end of this century or in coming centuries it will rise upto 13 to 20 feet according to scientists .

Will rise up to 13 to 20 feet according to kooks you mean. Can you show me any credible peer reviewed material from the past few years that suggests such a thing?

Yep.
Philosophical Transactions A - Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of four degrees and its implications


United Nations climate change negotiations have failed to deliver an agreement on reducing future greenhouse gas emissions to levels that avoid dangerous climate change. This increases the possibility that global temperatures will rise by four degrees or more in the 21st Century, with potentially serious consequences for ecosystems and society. In this issue leading international scholars explore the likelihood of large climate changes, the potential impacts of these changes, and challenges involved in both avoiding high levels of warming, and in adapting should we fail to do so.

 

[Old Rocks]

​

Yeah, you keep posting that bit of pseudoscience as if it were a crucial bible verse in your religion. For about the third time now, which part of that are you claiming is proof that CO2 can absorb and trap heat?

Feel free to point me to a line number or a heading title, or even one of the blue pointers to the right of the page.

Once more, I predict no answer as no part of your crucial religious text references anything even resembling experimental proof that CO2 can trap and retain heat.

Lordy, lordy. The American Institute of Physics and American Geophysical Union are purveyors of psuedoscience. Then, of course, Anthony Watt and Rush Limpbaugh are the true scientists, correct?

I am sure you can get stupider if you really try, Bender, old boy.

I guess you forgot that the American Institute of Physics is a charter school for poor students who can't do math. olfraud is probably one of their dropouts.

LOL. Well, that is the best answer you can give, Walleyes. You are one stupid individual.

The American Institute of Physics -- Physics Publications and Resources

Dedicated to the advancement of physics, AIP serves a federation of physical science societies, and provides leadership through its own programs and publications

 

[RollingThunder]

Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.

You've been shown so many times that it is obvious that you are fixated on a belief that doesn't rest on science or evidence and that probably can't be shaken no matter how much evidence is shoved in your face. You can't see it if your eyes are closed.

But OK, one more time....about 1:38 into this ten minute video...

YouTube - This Year's Model

 

[wirebender]

Yep.
Philosophical Transactions A - Four degrees and beyond: the potential for a global temperature change of four degrees and its implications

An article in their own magazine reviewed by their own members. Some review process. I did ask for credible as well. That hardly makes the cut rocks; but the fact that you repeatedly reference this sort of tripe as evidence to support your position does explain much about you and the mind set required to hold a position such as yours.

Thanks.

 

[wirebender]

Let me know when you find something that actually approaches proof that CO2 can absorb and retain energy.

You've been shown so many times that it is obvious that you are fixated on a belief that doesn't rest on science or evidence and that probably can't be shaken no matter how much evidence is shoved in your face. You can't see it if your eyes are closed.

But OK, one more time....about 1:38 into this ten minute video...

YouTube - This Year's Model

You doofus. Is that what you have been claiming was proof that CO2 can absorb and retain heat? You really don't hav a clue do you. First and foremost, that experiment is performed in a closed system which invalidates any inferrence that it may have anything to do with the open atmosphere of the earth. The guy claiming that it in any way represents CO2 in an open system is no more than a huckster pulling the wool over your eyes via your own ignorance.

Because it is in a closed system, the only proof that is happening there is that one molecule of CO2 can not absorb the emission spectrum of another CO2 molecule. TThe system is closed and there is no where for the energy to go. An emission spectrum is precisely the opposite of an absorption spectrum and as such, a molecule of a given gas can not absorb the emission spectrum of a molecule of the same gas. In a closed system, it doesn't take long to run out of molecules capable of absorbing the transmitted light and transmission drops off very quickly. There is no proof in that experiment of anything having to do with CO2 molecules in an open system.

I ask for some proof that CO2 can absorb and retain heat with perfect confidence thunder because no such evidence exists. If it did, and were proveable, my position on AGW would be entirely different. Of course the laws of physics would be different as well and I suppose we would be in a different universe. Your experimental "evidence" isn't. It is a side show and proves nothing about open systems.

Keep trying though. It is always entertaining.

 

[Old Rocks]

Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists. You just keep yapping with no referances of your own as refutation. We are to believe an ananomous poster on a message board over real scientists?

 

[konradv]

But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation. Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

 

[westwall]

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

This is one of many studies that refute your statement.

E-mail Abstract
Export RIS Citation
Permissions


Join AGU



Journal Services
E-Alert Sign-Up
RSS Feeds
Cited By
Scitopia
Reference Tools
Contact AGU


Bookmarks

Connotea

CiteULike

del.ico.us

BibSonomy


Keywords

•sea level change
•neural network

Index Terms

•Global Change: Sea level change
•Global Change: Oceans
•Oceanography: General: Climate and interannual variability



Abstract

Cited By (0)




JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2009JC005630

Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks



Manfred Wenzel

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

Jens Schröter

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany


The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.




Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks

 

[wirebender]

But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation. Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.

So your contention is that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion. Excess energy with no additional work. Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that if I set a heater in my living room that is capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter and then set a reflective surface in front of that heater, that the reflected heat from the heater will then raise the output of the heater beyond 1000 watts per square meter thus producing more energy than is coming from my wall socket?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists. You just keep yapping with no referances of your own as refutation. We are to believe an ananomous poster on a message board over real scientists?

Pointing to the weather somewhere on the planet is not science. You know that, right?

 

[wirebender]

Keep trying what? You have been presented real evidence from real scientists.

Thus far, I have been presented with no real science. Your mantra certainly doesn't contain any real science, and the video from konradv is nothing more than a side show trick filmed by a huckster. That is the point. You have no real science to support your claim. What you call real science doesn't even involve the scientific method.

Since by now it is abundantly clear that you don't have a clue as to what the scientific method is, here is a working definition.

scientific method -–noun
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.

Now by all means, provide the empirical material that proves the hypothesis.

 

[westwall]

But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation. Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.

So your contention is that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion. Excess energy with no additional work. Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that if I set a heater in my living room that is capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter and then set a reflective surface in front of that heater, that the reflected heat from the heater will then raise the output of the heater beyond 1000 watts per square meter thus producing more energy than is coming from my wall socket?

Yes, basically that is his claim.

 

[RollingThunder]

But the emission CAN go to heat the earth, thereby leaving the CO2 molecule to absorb another photon of IR radiation. Your analysis proves nothing, except that your trying to fool the unsophisticated with big words.

So your contention is that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion. Excess energy with no additional work. Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that if I set a heater in my living room that is capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter and then set a reflective surface in front of that heater, that the reflected heat from the heater will then raise the output of the heater beyond 1000 watts per square meter thus producing more energy than is coming from my wall socket?

Yes, basically that is his claim.

No, that's just the 'best' (but still very flawed) interpretation that a couple of idiots like you two can come up with when you're so totally ignorant about the whole subject. The greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact and carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Your denial of basic physics only highlights what politically motivated morons you are.

 

[westwall]

So your contention is that a passively warmed object can warm its source of heat. Perpetual motion. Excess energy with no additional work. Is that what you are claiming?

Are you saying that if I set a heater in my living room that is capable of an output of 1000 watts per square meter and then set a reflective surface in front of that heater, that the reflected heat from the heater will then raise the output of the heater beyond 1000 watts per square meter thus producing more energy than is coming from my wall socket?

Yes, basically that is his claim.

No, that's just the 'best' (but still very flawed) interpretation that a couple of idiots like you two can come up with when you're so totally ignorant about the whole subject. The greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact and carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Your denial of basic physics only highlights what politically motivated morons you are.

Describe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in your own words. No cut and paste. In your own words bucko.

 

[wirebender]

No, that's just the 'best' (but still very flawed) interpretation that a couple of idiots like you two can come up with when you're so totally ignorant about the whole subject. The greenhouse effect is an established scientific fact and carbon dioxide is a powerful greenhouse gas. Your denial of basic physics only highlights what politically motivated morons you are.

Sorry guy, but the greenhouse effect is little more than a piss poor hypothesis that, to date, remains unsupported by any empirical evidence whatsoever as evidenced by the complete inability of any of you wackos to provide any observed, experimental proof to support the hypothesis.

I have asked you repeately to describe the mechanism by which you believe CO2 is able to absorb and retain energy in spite of the fact that its emission spectra is preciesly the opposite of its absorption spectra proving beyond doubt that it does not retain energy at all.

Care to describe the mechanism or is it, as I suspect, no more than an article of faith for you and the rest of the congregation?

 

[wirebender]

Describe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in your own words. No cut and paste. In your own words bucko.

You dont' really expect any of them to speak on the subject in their own words do you?

 

[Old Rocks]

Is sea level rising?

There is strong evidence that global sea level is now rising at an increased rate and will continue to rise during this century.

While studies show that sea levels changed little from AD 0 until 1900, sea levels began to climb in the 20th century.

The two major causes of global sea-level rise are thermal expansion caused by the warming of the oceans (since water expands as it warms) and the loss of land-based ice (such as glaciers and polar ice caps) due to increased melting.

Records and research show that sea level has been steadily rising at a rate of 1 to 2.5 millimeters (0.04 to 0.1 inches) per year since 1900.

This rate may be increasing. Since 1992, new methods of satellite altimetry (the measurement of elevation or altitude) indicate a rate of rise of 3 millimeters (0.12 inches) per year.

This is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years.

This is one of many studies that refute your statement.

E-mail Abstract
Export RIS Citation
Permissions


Join AGU



Journal Services
E-Alert Sign-Up
RSS Feeds
Cited By
Scitopia
Reference Tools
Contact AGU


Bookmarks

Connotea

CiteULike

del.ico.us

BibSonomy


Keywords

•sea level change
•neural network

Index Terms

•Global Change: Sea level change
•Global Change: Oceans
•Oceanography: General: Climate and interannual variability



Abstract

Cited By (0)




JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 115, C08013, 15 PP., 2010
doi:10.1029/2009JC005630

Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks



Manfred Wenzel

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany

Jens Schröter

Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, Bremerhaven, Germany


The 20th century regional and global sea level variations are estimated based on long-term tide gauge records. For this the neural network technique is utilized that connects the coastal sea level with the regional and global mean via a nonlinear empirical relationship. Two major difficulties are overcome this way: the vertical movement of tide gauges over time and the problem of what weighting function to choose for each individual tide gauge record. Neural networks are also used to fill data gaps in the tide gauge records, which is a prerequisite for our analysis technique. A suite of different gap-filling strategies is tested which provides information about stability and variance of the results. The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration. The regional mean sea level of the single ocean basins show mixed long-term behavior. While most of the basins show a sea level rise of varying strength there is an indication for a mean sea level fall in the southern Indian Ocean. Also for the the tropical Indian and the South Atlantic no significant trend can be detected. Nevertheless, the South Atlantic as well as the tropical Atlantic are the only basins that show significant acceleration. On shorter timescales, but longer than the annual cycle, the basins sea level are dominated by oscillations with periods of about 50–75 years and of about 25 years. Consequently, we find high (lagged) correlations between the single basins.




Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks

Excellent, Walleyes, excellent. I like real science. So we have one group basing their estimates of the rate of rise by tidal gauges, and another using both tidal gauges and satellite altimitery. One finds a steady rate, the other a rate that is accelerating. Seems we need to look at other studies. So that is what we will do.