Tarragon wrote:What is it they list 1880 onwards? Are they saying that the sea level only rose since 1880? Or are they saying that only since 1880 can sea level begin to be attributed to mankind. And if so, are they saying that it's because AGW only started in 1880, or only became detectable since 1880, or only started to be recorded directly or reliably in 1880 (whereas proxy data and sparce and poorly sourced data and anecdotes might be excluded)?
I've seen papers that claim it's due to AGW, or that AGW is the dominant reason. That can't be the case since it started well before humans were pumping huge amounts of CO2 into the air. The CO2 levels were still at average levels till the mid 1800's. That's documented. So if the seas and the glaciers were already being affected, it simply can't be to AGW. There is also a lag effect. CO2 being released doesn't instantly make these things happen. It take a long time for oceans to heat up and glaciers to melt.
Ignoring the possibility that human activity might have been a factor since as long as people have been pumping CO2 into the air above natural background processes since mankind invented fire, is sea level rise limited to one source? Can human activity add to the natural background rise in sea level?
Not if you look at the CO2 levels. They were stable till about the late 1800's. In 1850 it was still at average long term levels.
What effect does the way it's being sold to the general public affect the data? The statement: "AGW is responsible for the vast majority of sea level rise is the standard message," seems vague. Is that from a scientific paper, and did it state it the timeframe or provide other context?
It's all over the place. Fear mongering. The Oceans are rising, the glaciers are melting, we are the cause.
If you want specific articles I can find them for you but it's pretty much what is being told to us, even by climatologists.
It's hard to know what to say and what to ask when you refer to uncited papers without specific quotes and numbers. But this is your voyage of discovery, and you're the captain of that ship, so I won't tell you where to sail. I know it seems like uncharted territory, but it's actually very well charted.
I gave one link. I'm going on what I was researching years ago and that was the accepted view. Humans are the cause, no if's or buts.
However, I am heartened to read this: "I have to see how this is explained by those who support the theory of AGW being the cause of the loss of the glaciers but it will have to be some pretty impressive explanation since it started before the CO2 emissions." You know what you need to do next, and I know those papers exist. Carry on, sir.
As I wrote, I was a huge believer in AGW. For the last few years I've had to examine my positions on various topics as there is so much misinformation out there. That's all I'm doing. Checking that what I have been led to believe is true. The only thing I'm not doing is accepting something unless it is both verifiable and logical. Claiming AGW caused the Oceans to rise and the glaciers to recede fits neither. So I'm looking at it as, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
e.g.
http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2014/05/1 ... tudy-says/Unless they can explain why the natural process of warming suddenly dropped off it's normal rise, this is complete crap. The natural rise constitutes about 50% of the rise if we just go by the pre-industrial rate of sea level rise. SO for humans to be responsible for 90% it means they should be able to demonstrate why the natural rate of warming has suddenly dropped and AGW has suddenly risen.
Here's why they concluded that:
The period analyzed was 1950–2005, overlapping between numerical simulations and hydrographic observations. For models and observations, thermosteric sea level was computed at each time step by integrating the specific volume anomaly down to 700 m at each grid point with constant salinity and equal to its initial field. The integration depth was determined by the availability of the observations. All thermosteric sea level fields were finally interpolated onto the same 1° × 1° grid and averaged into annual values.
Note that the rate prior to the 1950's was also rising and was not due to AGW. If you don't include the baseline then you are going to get the wrong results. By looking at the rates only after the 1950s they have excluded what was happening before. To top it off, they are relying on model simulations. As an engineer I can tell you that model simulations can be completely off even in a highly mathematical and well understood process such as electronics. Better simulators give better results but they never fully line up with the reality. That's for something that is so well understood and used that most of the World relies on those principles. As a design engineer I design something, model it and simulate it and then test it. Simulations get you in a close ballpark but not fully. This is for extremely well understood concepts. By comparison, climate is like playing darts blindfolded and claiming high accuracy. No offense to climatologists intended, but models and simulations that they are doing are no where near as well understood as the electronics field and that field has problems getting accurate results while being far simpler and far more defined.
Here's another:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/sc ... -rise.htmlHuman activities, such as burning coal and oil and cutting down tropical forests, have increased atmospheric concentrations of heat-trapping gases and caused the planet to warm by 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880.
Rising temperatures are warming ocean waters, which expand as the temperature increases. This thermal expansion was the main driver of global sea level rise for 75 - 100 years after the start of the Industrial Revolution, though its relative contribution has declined as the shrinking of land ice has accelerated.
Land ice—glaciers, ice caps, and ice sheets—is shrinking at a faster rate in response to rising temperatures, adding water to the world's oceans.
As the rate of ice loss has accelerated, its contribution to global sea level rise has increased from a little more than half of the total increase from 1993 - 2008 to 75 - 80 percent of the total increase between 2003 - 2007.
You'll notice the year 1880, it's always around this time frame. Yet the data is there that the Oceans were rising well before that, that glaciers were receding before that. If the Ocean was rising and the glaciers receding before the release of CO2 by humans, then the temperature was also increasing back then, by their own theory. Yet, they rarely acknowledge this fact. The rate that glaciers are receding is actually quite linear from 1815 onwards. They are claiming otherwise. Their own data however shows this to not be the case.
The first part I bolded, is totally true. What is misleading is that it was also the main driver for the previous 150 years before the industrial revolution. Why is that ignored?
See where I'm going?
I see lot of papers that are ignoring the historical data and only looking at the 1880's onwards, thus can see a clear link between CO2 emissions and temperature rise, Ocean rise and glacier recession. The problem is this was happening at the same rate prior to the CO2 being released. If CO2 is a significant factor, then where is the change in rate?
These are just the problems I'm seeing. I have yet to investigate the scientists explanations. Like I wrote though, they are going to have to be damned good to establish a link when there is no cause and effect in play. The effect was there before the claimed cause. That's a huge problem. The other huge problem is that they seem to constantly use data after the industrial revolution. So no baseline. I have an issue with that.
Sorry, must go cook. Lamb kebabs, on the grill. So I'm contributing to AGW! lol
Posted: Wed May 17, 2017 5:29 pm
