US coasts sea level rise 10 to 12 inches by 2050

[AllenRbrts]

Originally Posted by Ericson38

A lot of peer reviewed papers have been plain wrong. Not impressed.

The paper I linked discussed overlap extensively, and at the end, gets the C02 contribution to warming closer to reality than the current models do.

The atmospheric energy balance has been known for a long time, measured and confirmed since the earliest satellites were launched (it was critical for heat seeking missiles). it is in hundreds of papers and text books. Your paper you cited says they have found a flaw in that work and have zero confirming data of their findings, other than we like .5C for a doubling of CO2 and H2O has no effect. Basic science will tell you that 1C rise will result in 7% more H2O in the atmosphere.. and that H2O is 60% of the effect of the overall greenhouse gas equation to CO2's 30%. Something doesn't add up.
The authors have zero published papers on this topic before this paper. You like the paper because it has answers you endorse. I don't like the paper because it is wrong on the most basic technical facts.

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by jackdale

It proves Hansen got it right.

Nailed that one jackdale. These deniers have zero understanding of how science works - they just hack away at their cherry picking to prop up their pathetic presumptions. The fact that Hansen et al predicted the onset of a global climate change that is this dramatic well before it occurred is itself a very powerful validation of the models and the methods. Extremely powerful. Prediction is stupendously hard.
Important to also note that Exxon scientists predicted this well before NOAA, Hansen et al. Oil companies are not dummies. Liars, yes. Dummies, no.

From Scientific American

'They found that the company’s knowledge of climate change dates back to July 1977, when its senior scientist James Black delivered a sobering message on the topic. “In the first place, there is general scientific agreement that the most likely manner in which mankind is influencing the global climate is through carbon dioxide release from the burning of fossil fuels," Black told Exxon’s management committee. A year later he warned Exxon that doubling CO2 gases in the atmosphere would increase average global temperatures by two or three degrees—a number that is consistent with the scientific consensus today.'

Same song as the tobacco companies. ACC was known in 1977 to Exxon, but of course, they shut down the research program and set about spending much more money to lie about it to the public. Forty plus years later, an overwhelming mass of confirmatory data, and yet knuckleheads still prattle on about how it is all wrong.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Without causation established, the graph are only background information. Just how annual mean temperatures over vast areas are established is a complex issue that can include bias on how data is manipulated. Taken without questioning methods, these figures can simply be showing effects of natural solar variation. Another consideration is that the little ice age ran from about 1300 to 1850 AD. Establishing precise dates for such an event can be quite subjective.

In science correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causative relationship.

Berkeley Earth has established a 250 year correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperature.
Summary of Findings – Berkeley Earth

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

The increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans

Long and short term natural forcings would have us cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

QED

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by AllenRbrts

(stuff deleted) You (denier) like the paper because it has answers you endorse. I don't like the paper because it is wrong on the most basic technical facts.

And Allen nails it in a very simple way. The very idea that one would troll through enormous numbers of publications and data to find a few snippets that you agree with (irrespective of its flaws) is not just unseemly denialism - it is one of the fundamentals of scientific misconduct. Data selection. Every one of these deniers would be guilty of scientific misconduct if they were scientists, which of course they are not.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

In 1976, climate scientist Stephen Schneider wrote a book about how to prepare for lower food production caused by global cooling. Some years later Schneider became a leading advocate of global warming alarmism.

Rasool and and Schneider's paper (not a book) was predicated on continuing industrial aerosol emissions. Remember smog. The Clean Air Acts reduced industrial aerosols. Their paper recognized CO2 as warming factor.

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate
S. I. RASOOL AND S. H. SCHNEIDER
SCIENCE • 9 Jul 1971 • Vol 173, Issue 3992 • pp. 138-141 • DOI: 10.1126/science.173.3992.138

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

In science correlation + mechanism = evidence of a causative relationship.

Berkeley Earth has established a 250 year correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and global temperature.
Summary of Findings – Berkeley Earth

The mechanism of CO2 as a GHG has been known for 2 centuries
https://history.aip.org/climate/index.htm#contents

The increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 2.5 centuries can be attributed to the burning of fossil fuels.
https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...-caused-humans

Long and short term natural forcings would have us cooling.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/14/is-t...lobal-warming/

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-cl...rrent-warming/

QED

All easy to explain and debunk

The ocean has anywhere from a 40 to 300 year lag. Heck they have even found thermal evidences of the little ice age still around in the deep ocean.

https://www.science.org/content/arti...p-records-show

Secondly we are just now leaving the warm period iaw the Milankovitch cycles .
Warming seen is due to the 50 year surface lag of the oceans. Along with the grand maximum that ended about 50 or so years ago.

Time will tell . This is going to be fun .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

The climate change industrial complex has an agenda. It is a political agenda as proven by examination of its first grand scale promotion by Margaret Thatcher. We can spend much time reading detailed studies, but simple situational scrutiny reveals their ineptitude and or malevolence.

I guess everyone needs a hobby. Mine's boats, and some other stuff. But I suppose dabbling in conspiracies and alternate facts also helps to pass some idle hours.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by lestersails

And Allen nails it in a very simple way. The very idea that one would troll through enormous numbers of publications and data to find a few snippets that you agree with (irrespective of its flaws) is not just unseemly denialism - it is one of the fundamentals of scientific misconduct. Data selection. Every one of these deniers would be guilty of scientific misconduct if they were scientists, which of course they are not.

As well papers rejecting AGW are riddled with errors.

Benestad, R.E., Nuccitelli, D., Lewandowsky, S. et al. Learning from mistakes in climate research. Theor Appl Climatol 126, 699–703 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1597-5

Among papers stating a position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), 97 % endorse AGW. What is happening with the 2 % of papers that reject AGW? We examine a selection of papers rejecting AGW. An analytical tool has been developed to replicate and test the results and methods used in these studies; our replication reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases. Thus, real-life scientific disputes in some cases can be resolved, and we can learn from mistakes. A common denominator seems to be missing contextual information or ignoring information that does not fit the conclusions, be it other relevant work or related geophysical data. In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup. Other typical weaknesses include false dichotomies, inappropriate statistical methods, or basing conclusions on misconceived or incomplete physics. We also argue that science is never settled and that both mainstream and contrarian papers must be subject to sustained scrutiny. The merit of replication is highlighted and we discuss how the quality of the scientific literature may benefit from replication.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

The ocean has anywhere from a 40 to 300 year lag. Heck they have even found thermal evidences of the little ice age still around in the deep ocean.

https://www.science.org/content/arti...p-records-show

Do you bother to read what you post?

If real, this slow drop in deep ocean temperatures is a boon to a warming planet. If the little ice age hadn't cooled the oceans, they'd likely be absorbing less heat from the atmosphere today, and surface warming would be much worse than it already is. "It's buying us time," Rosenthal says. "It's buying us time."

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

Without causation established, the graph are only background information.

I am sorry that you don't have the background or ability to understand what you are trying to argue.
What legitimate scientists do is to build a model, based on solid principles, make some kind of prediction or hypothesis, then design an experiment or data collection method that has the potential to refute the model, gather it, and ask if it refutes or supports the prediction. The same experiment is often repeated for a validity check. If a model is fundamentally valid, then numerous other logical predictions from it are so tested. If a model yields numerous predictions that are validated by data, it is overwhelmingly likely to be correct. This is exactly what has happened with ACC - the model predicts tons of things for which innumerable observations demonstrate support for the model.

The model can be overturned by coming up with a different/better model that is consistent with the data and (hopefully) leads to some new predictions that can also be tested. The model is not overturned by small numbers of contradictory results - what you are trying to do is utterly pointless and proves only that you have no idea what you are doing. The tiny number of things that you have raised have another, simpler explanation rather than than ACC is wrong.

Some deniers say "but science isn't about voting or consensus, it should be about truth". This represents a middle school level of science sophistication. All experiments or gathered datasets are sample sets of all possible data. Samples are susceptible to random variation. You would expect to see a small number of results of experiments contradict a model that is absolutely correct, due to known, measurable statistical variation. In fact, you want to see this - if science is being done honestly, people should be occasionally coming up with data that don't fit the model.

An honest scientist would try to understand why their particular dataset might not fit the model. Methodology, statistical variation, etc. If all those problems have been excluded AND the scientist can come up with a better model that explains their anomalous result AND fits with the huge mass of data that were consistent with the old model - voila! You have overturned the paradigm.

Nothing you have said here comes remotely close to doing that. You are just fumbling around in the dark of your biases, presumptions, and biases to desperately find crumbs of conflicting data. They mean nothing and you are accomplishing nothing by doing this.

[GordMay]

The ocean is the largest solar energy collector on Earth. Not only does water cover more than 70 percent of our planet’s surface, it can also absorb large amounts of heat, without a large increase in temperature.
This tremendous ability to store and release heat, over long periods of time, gives the ocean a central role in stabilizing Earth’s climate system.

The main source of ocean heat is sunlight. Additionally, clouds, water vapor, and greenhouse gases emit heat that they have absorbed, and some of that heat energy enters the ocean. Waves, tides, and currents constantly mix the ocean, moving heat from warmer to cooler latitudes and to deeper levels.

Heat absorbed by the ocean is moved from one place to another, but it doesn’t disappear. The heat energy eventually re-enters the rest of the Earth system by melting ice shelves, evaporating water, or directly reheating the atmosphere.
Thus, heat energy in the ocean can warm the planet for decades after it was absorbed.

If the ocean absorbs more heat than it releases, its heat content increases. Knowing how much heat energy the ocean absorbs and releases is essential for understanding and modeling global climate.

More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean.

Recent studies estimate that warming of the upper oceans accounts for about 63 percent of the total increase in the amount of stored heat in the climate system from 1971 to 2010, and warming from 700 meters down to the ocean floor adds about another 30 percent.

Less than a watt per square meter might seem like a small change, but multiplied by the surface area of the ocean (more than 360 million square kilometers), that translates into an enormous global energy imbalance. It means that while the atmosphere has been spared from the full extent of global warming for now, heat already stored in the ocean will eventually be released, committing Earth to additional warming in the future.

In the present, warming of ocean water is raising global sea level because water expands when it warms.

Combined with water from melting glaciers on land, the rising sea threatens natural ecosystems and human structures near coastlines around the world.

Warming ocean waters are also implicated in the thinning of ice shelves and sea ice, both of which have further consequences for Earth’s climate system.

Finally, warming ocean waters threaten marine ecosystems and human livelihoods. For example, warm waters jeopardize the health of corals, and in turn, the communities of marine life that depend upon them for shelter and food. Ultimately, people who depend upon marine fisheries for food and jobs may face negative impacts from the warming ocean.

“Global Ocean Heat and Salt Content: Seasonal, Yearly, and Pentadal Fields” ~ NOAA’s NCEI
➥ https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/glo...-heat-content/

“Earth's Big Heat Bucket” ~ NASA
➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/HeatBucket

“Correcting Ocean Cooling” ~ NASA
➥ https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCooling

[Bycrick]

Hear seeking missiles? I know the zealots blame climate change for everything from dandruff on, but heat seeking missiles? I thought they were anti-air missiles, like the old Sidewinder.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Bycrick

Hear seeking missiles? I know the zealots blame climate change for everything from dandruff on, but heat seeking missiles? I thought they were anti-air missiles, like the old Sidewinder.

Ask Richard Alley

"The physics behind that [greenhouse gases] causing warming are the same physics that the Air Force used to put sensors on heat-seeking missiles. In some really fundamental sense, if you deny the global warming effect of our CO2 you are claiming the Air Force doesn't know what to put on their heat seeking missiles. It's absurd."

[jackdale]

So who on this thread rejects the Greenhouse Effect?

https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/file..._bookchap7.pdf

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by Dieseldude

People who are aware of the climate con how to discern sense from lies. But the climate change believers are an incredibly naive lot

You have yet to explain why 2 or 3 generations of humans should burn through all the oil reserves leaving none for anyone after that. None for rescue, none for emergency aid. There are no proven alternative technologies for these essential uses yet we have proven technologies for non-essential uses. Until there is more technology, we should conserve our limited resources. Using it to make sails and rope will make it last 100 times longer than powering engines with it. This fact has nothing to do with the climate.