|
|
Post by purr on May 11, 2018 22:55:22 GMT
 Cycles 11 (Oct. 1992) to 276 (April 2000)
Figure 5
SEA LEVEL CHANGES AS OBSERVED BY TOPEX/POSEIDON IN 2000
These are the annual mean sea level changes from TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite observations,
after technical “corrections” were applied (from Menard 2000). A slow, long-term rising trend
of 1.0 mm/year was identified, but this linear approach ignores the ENSO (El Niño - Southern Oscillation) event in cycles 175-200.Everybody over the past decades at some point has been inundated and alarmed by authorities and scientists warning us our world is warming up due to industrial emissions, labels for this theory evolving from Anthropogenic (=Manmade) Global Warming to over recent years the more reserved: 'Climate Change'. Politically charged stuff too, I remember hearing it and believing it myself too, and any folks not buying into it being made to look foolish and lagging behind (or in the pocket of industrial polluters!). Today we have one president, Trump of the US, who has advocated listening to dissenting views, models incorporating intense Warming Spells and Cold Snaps, apparent ups and downs in Earth temperature which seem only weakly linked to human activity/industrial greenhouse gases, or totally independent of our activity (because they happened before the industrial revolution, or before modern man emerged on the planet!). This powerful guy is made fun of regardless for his views.  Naturally occurring cosmic body impact, erupting super volcanos,along with solar minimum vs. maximum has dwarfed mankind's impact on global temperature/climate throughout time.Let's try making sense of it all. A simple way to put it (I like 'simple'  ) is that our cars and facturies have been spewing CO2 and other so called Greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, causing Earth atmosphere to trap more heat over time, hence the Global Warming, which in turn heats up seas and oceans, even our poles, finally melting ice caps, calves/fractures ice shelves, does away with entire glaciers, warms up overall climate, 'weirds' weather and the most immediate threat of all: causes sea/oceans to rise to increasingly dangerous levels for coastal residents. Thing is, this greatly alarming model and its findings are contended by data collected by the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites! If you like charts, there's one shown above post (carefully selected from a manmade warming sympathiser  ) meant to show sea level rise from 1992 to 2000. First appearing in a publication by Menard, 2000, it shows a rising trend of 1 millimeter per year. This gets funny. The 'manmade warming' scientists got into trouble with these satellite data, because the chart has a massive peak (Tidal Cycles 175-200) contributing to the 1 mm trend of sea level rise, that peak turned out to be caused by El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), a NATURAL climate pattern occurring every few years! Remove the El Niño effect from the measurements, and sea level 'rise' would amount close to zero. Zero, as in no rise at all. Since then these results have been 'corrected', 'adjusted' actually tilted upward, resulting in graphs as you all have seen published and broadcast any number of times, many such 'scientific' presentations concluding measured/predicted sea level rises have been / will be significant, one official version opting for 2.3 millimeter per year. Imo there's a problem with this. These big, worrying sea level rises largely are modeled, moving way beyond the original raw data. Raw data suggesting no global sea level rise at all, or one less than 1 mm/yr. for discrete period 1992-2000. (Minor, gradual rises in sea level over many 1000s of years are not contended.)  "If Sea Levels don't fit, Industrial Man we must acquit!"Like I said, this post is the short & simple version of my (layperson's) understanding of the problem with Manmade Climate Change theory. Industry is warming up Planet Earth. Waters are rising. But the claim of rising sea levels is contradicted by real world measurements, indicating little or no rise over periods of sea levels measured. Of course more recent data may yet counterbalance the above. Logically though, if the sea/ocean doesn't ( significantly, showing an upward 'trend') rise, the Manmade Climate Change theory explaining inexorably rising sea levels is cast in doubt. Perhaps, like Donald Trump says, known for not mincing words, our planet's climate and temperature naturally goes "up and down"? purr SOURCE: There Is No Alarming Sea Level Rise! |
|
|
|
Post by GhostofEd on May 12, 2018 1:06:56 GMT
Who to believe? www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
Rather than being flat since 1970, as Mörner claimed in The Spectator article, mean sea level has risen more than 80mm over that period, according to tide gauges. In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating.
Highlighting the degree to which his arguments are divorced from reality, in testimony to the British House of Lords, Mörner even presented this laughable graph (which was later reproduced by Monckton and the SPPI), simply rotating Figure 1 to produce "the evidence that sea level is not rising" (Figure 5).
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 12, 2018 10:21:15 GMT
Who to believe? www.skepticalscience.com/Nils-Axel-Morner-wrong-about-sea-level-rise.html
Rather than being flat since 1970, as Mörner claimed in The Spectator article, mean sea level has risen more than 80mm over that period, according to tide gauges. In fact, not only is global mean sea level data rising, but the rise is accelerating.
Highlighting the degree to which his arguments are divorced from reality, in testimony to the British House of Lords, Mörner even presented this laughable graph (which was later reproduced by Monckton and the SPPI), simply rotating Figure 1 to produce "the evidence that sea level is not rising" (Figure 5).
Let's hold off on 'belief' for a moment! Thanks for your input, GhostofEd! (And I'm adding a poll so anyone with a point of view / certain belief may chime in!) purr |
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 12, 2018 11:21:25 GMT
Agreed on the degree of contention (from either perspective), GhostofEd. I'm not telling you or others what to believe of course. But please note the chart shown at top of my thread starter: it's the 'Menard 2000' version, before it was tilted (up & down again during the ensuing disagreements!), basically the official near raw data. Nils-Morner just published it to show satellite data originally seemed to show approximately zero sea level rise globally.
purr
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 12, 2018 11:53:46 GMT
For all the good folks participating in the poll: just magnifying the fine print:
You may select up to 4 answers.
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on May 12, 2018 20:46:18 GMT
..Imo there's a problem with this. These big, worrying sea level rises largely are modeled, moving way beyond the original raw data..
All future predictions are based on original data; it's the only data we have. Every day more is added and the model is modified.
You don't need much of a sea level rise to make a huge difference to towns on the coast. Just add in some wind and a bit of storm surge. Ask any resident of Florida.
But nothing effective will be done. Even if possible.
Too many influential people have too much money invested the status quo.
Trump is relaxing emmission controls on vehicles so it will be easier to get cars/truck past the tests. At the same time that he has his watchdogs prosecuting European car manufactures for dodgy Diesel computers.
See what I mean.
HAL
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 17, 2018 17:49:15 GMT
..Imo there's a problem with this. These big, worrying sea level rises largely are modeled, moving way beyond the original raw data.. All future predictions are based on original data; it's the only data we have. Every day more is added and the model is modified. You don't need much of a sea level rise to make a huge difference to towns on the coast. Just add in some wind and a bit of storm surge. Ask any resident of Florida. But nothing effective will be done. Even if possible. Too many influential people have too much money invested the status quo. Trump is relaxing emmission controls on vehicles so it will be easier to get cars/truck past the tests. At the same time that he has his watchdogs prosecuting European car manufactures for dodgy Diesel computers. See what I mean. HAL Hi HAL, to say 'all predictions are based on original data' or, 'original is the only data we have' (yet there's continual 'adding' / 'modifying' same data  ). Seems you are implying that 'adding to' and 'modifying' data does not detract from its 'original' qualification. May I submit for your consideration the possibility that original (measurements recorded directly from satellites, tide gauges) could well be distinguished from subsequent stages of these data being added to (with new information), changed/corrected/modified within a pre-existing model (like a rising sea level trend!), or even spun to fit a MSM presentation by a manmade climate change advocate. Surely you see that going back far enough EVERYTHING I just described is indeed based on original data. YET IT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, begging the question how closely such interpretations correlate with or diverge from their original basis. Specifically: my contention in topic is that Manmade Climate Change theory radically diverges from the 'original' satellite data (see first diagram in threadstarter), this satellite data indicating near zero or (removing El Niño effects occurring naturally) zero sea level rise over past decades. That "zero" is original. The MCC interpretation has been multiple 'corrections' that serve to show a rising waters trend purportedly threatening coastal communities and mandating an urgent international response costing billions, especially turning world economy Green. HAL... if the original zero rise findings are factual/true, where's the urgency? Why disrupt entire economies? I agree with you in part. When (often: developing) areas are prone to frequent flooding, causing immense suffering, even death to affected populations. When entire cities are suffocating due to big industrial polluters pigging out. Those nations, any companies responsible, must be encouraged/financially aided/forced to relieve their residents' plight, protect those areas vulnerable to flooding, even including preparations for (rare) tsunamis and major seismic catastrophe. NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING THE PLANET OR OUR CLIMATE IMHO. It is just the decent thing to do to prevent folks, animals, local ecology from harm and annihilation. I tentatively agree with your Trump comment. It is as if this president's preference for the Global Warming 'critics' allows him to relax environmental protections for Americans (who actually need strong environmental legislation to demand to live free from pollution, and have good quality drinking water). He sees the business opportunity. Too early to tell where this leader is going. I hope he will see the ethical and political merit in helping his people and people everywhere to live healthy lives, committing the US to 'Green' action on a case by case basis. Could be a great legacy...  purr |
|
|
|
Post by HAL on May 17, 2018 19:29:16 GMT
Purr,
By original data I was referring to the fact that there is only data from the past. Simply because the future hasn't yet happened.Hence we can have no data from it. Anything forward of this moment is extrapolation.
.. Too early to tell where this leader is going. I hope he will see the ethical and political merit in helping his people and people everywhere to live healthy lives, committing the US to 'Green' action on a case by case basis. Could be a great legacy..
Well, I imagine he is going to jail eventually. Unless the next president pardons him.
He isn't the slightest bit interested in a green future. Never was and never will be. The only green he considers is the Greenback Dollar. He is treating the post of President as an excuse to get himself set up for when he leaves.
How can a nation that considers the consumption of more and more fossil fuels be anything else but self centered ?
He is a rich man in a rich mans world, and the rest of us are there to keep these people in expensive toys.
It's really just a modern version of Barons and Serfs.
P.s. Our government has just tightened up the emission requirements on cars and trucks, especially Diesels. Trump has relaxed the American requirements to allow for the sale of not so clean cars.
Says it all.
HAL
|
|
|
|
Post by HAL on May 17, 2018 19:33:18 GMT
..HAL... if the original zero rise findings are factual/true, where's the urgency? Why disrupt entire economies?..
Because you have to get these things going now.
And living where you do I would expect you to be very much aware of sea level.
HAL
|
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 17, 2018 23:05:39 GMT
..HAL... if the original zero rise findings are factual/true, where's the urgency? Why disrupt entire economies?.. Because you have to get these things going now. And living where you do I would expect you to be very much aware of sea level. HAL I suppose there's a difference in scale, cost and optimum elevation of dikes and barriers projected for that ultimately unknowable future, HAL, depending on extrapolating a predicted approx zero sea level rise, a 1 mm / year rise, or say 5 cm / year. (The latter, as you suggest, would mean we Dutch had better brush up on our German language skills  .) As you know we're "aware", for anyone less familiar with The Netherlands (=low lying lands) check out the Delta Works (which includes to Dutch minds the Zuiderzee Works and our river dike system). I suspect the best kept secret of the Delta Works is that they have always drawn their inspiration from worst case scenarios like the historical North Sea Flood of 1953. It's not about mm per year. It about predicting the next perfect storm (perfect because of double/triple whammies like hurricanes, super tides, super precipitation, even sea quakes etc.). The kind of Climate Change I believe in is natural and realistically includes weird weathers: tornado phenomena are for instance slowly closing in from Germany toward the Eastern Netherlands. And last but not least: an unstable Earth riddled with snoozing supervolcanos, hurtling through vast and and dangerous space. There be big rocks out there... purr |
|
|
|
Post by purr on May 17, 2018 23:15:30 GMT
Purr, By original data I was referring to the fact that there is only data from the past. Simply because the future hasn't yet happened.Hence we can have no data from it. Anything forward of this moment is extrapolation. .. Too early to tell where this leader is going. I hope he will see the ethical and political merit in helping his people and people everywhere to live healthy lives, committing the US to 'Green' action on a case by case basis. Could be a great legacy.. Well, I imagine he is going to jail eventually. Unless the next president pardons him. He isn't the slightest bit interested in a green future. Never was and never will be. The only green he considers is the Greenback Dollar. He is treating the post of President as an excuse to get himself set up for when he leaves. How can a nation that considers the consumption of more and more fossil fuels be anything else but self centered ? He is a rich man in a rich mans world, and the rest of us are there to keep these people in expensive toys. It's really just a modern version of Barons and Serfs. P.s. Our government has just tightened up the emission requirements on cars and trucks, especially Diesels. Trump has relaxed the American requirements to allow for the sale of not so clean cars. Says it all. HAL OK, let's see how it goes... purr |
|
) is that our cars and facturies have been spewing CO2 and other so called Greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, causing Earth atmosphere to trap more heat over time, hence the Global Warming, which in turn heats up seas and oceans, even our poles, finally melting ice caps, calves/fractures ice shelves, does away with entire glaciers, warms up overall climate, 'weirds' weather and the most immediate threat of all: causes sea/oceans to rise to increasingly dangerous levels for coastal residents. Thing is, this greatly alarming model and its findings are contended by data collected by the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellites! If you like charts, there's one shown above post (carefully selected from a manmade warming sympathiser 
) meant to show sea level rise from 1992 to 2000.
). Seems you are implying that 'adding to' and 'modifying' data does not detract from its 'original' qualification. May I submit for your consideration the possibility that original (measurements recorded directly from satellites, tide gauges) could well be distinguished from subsequent stages of these data being added to (with new information), changed/corrected/modified within a pre-existing model (like a rising sea level trend!), or even spun to fit a MSM presentation by a manmade climate change advocate. Surely you see that going back far enough EVERYTHING I just described is indeed based on original data. YET IT IS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, begging the question how closely such interpretations correlate with or diverge from their original basis.
.)