Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[drgl]

On the graph how were the measurements made from 1925-1992? (& for that matter from 1870 to 1924?)

Edited August 15, 2014 by drgl

[mikeworst]

Interesting and thanks for the link Knocker http://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/  Having perused the data for stable land areas for the last hour I feel that sea levels are not at all scary or rising at an alarming rate.

[knocker]

On the graph how were the measurements made from 1925-1992? (& for that matter from 1870 to 1924?)

 

Again I don't follow. Under the graph.

 

Sea level change for 1870-2001, based on tide gauge measurements, from Church J.A. and White N.J. "A 20th century acceleration in global sea-level rise" Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006; 33: L01602. University of Colorado data are shifted to have the same mean for 1993-2001 as Church and White.

[drgl]

• John A. Church and
• Neil J. White seem to be the sources? That doesn't say where, when & how these measurements were taken? I'm struggling to believe instruments were accurate to less than 1mm back in 1870 so curious as to how these figures were obtained.

[mikeworst]

"University of Colorado data are shifted to have the same mean for 1993-2001 as Church and White", oh my, is this manipulation I detect?. Mann up why don't you. " Of course there is and since 1993 satellites but the statement is a prediction taken from the paper I posted in the other thread"

[knocker]

Lloyd’s Warns Sea Level Rise, Land Subsidence Imperil Many ‘Megacities’

 

A bulletin from Lloyd’s of London warns that, “as sea levels rise, ground levels in coastal megacities are also falling – with potentially disastrous implications for insurers. Insurers of large property portfolios in the world’s great coastal cities will have factored the effects of climate change into their catastrophe models – including rising sea levels and more frequent storm surges. But what’s often missed is that many of these cities are sinking faster than the water is rising. In some, subsidence outstrips sea level rise by a factor of ten to one.â€

The subsidence heightens the potential losses from rising sea levels. Combined with “sea water inundation and flood damage, this can have disastrous consequences for the built environment – and property and business interruption insurers.†Gilles Erkens, of the Deltares Research Institute in Utrecht said: “We’re going down and the sea is coming up. Potential losses could run into hundreds of millions of dollars every year.â€

 

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2014/08/13/337421.htm

[mikeworst]

Little here to do with climate change but much with land mismanagement and natural subsidence. nothing new except perhaps increases in premiums?

[knocker]

Little here to do with climate change but much with land mismanagement and natural subsidence. nothing new except perhaps increases in premiums?

 

 

A bulletin from Lloyd’s of London warns that, “as sea levels rise, ground levels in coastal megacities are also falling – with potentially disastrous implications for insurers. Insurers of large property portfolios in the world’s great coastal cities will have factored the effects of climate change into their catastrophe models – including rising sea levels and more frequent storm surges. But what’s often missed is that many of these cities are sinking faster than the water is rising. In some, subsidence outstrips sea level rise by a factor of ten to one.â€

The subsidence heightens the potential losses from rising sea levels. Combined with “sea water inundation and flood damage, this can have disastrous consequences for the built environment – and property and business interruption insurers.†Gilles Erkens, of the Deltares Research Institute in Utrecht said: “We’re going down and the sea is coming up. Potential losses could run into hundreds of millions of dollars every year.â€

 

As a matter of interest is there any particular reason why you and others are polluting this thread rather than the correct one?

[Gray-Wolf]

'cause this thread doesn't go bleating to mods every time someone mistakenly post here rather than taking it to their own thread?

[knocker]

'cause this thread doesn't go bleating to mods every time someone mistakenly post here rather than taking it to their own thread?

 

Mistakenly? Ah, your generosity of spirit GW.

[Nights King]

As a matter of interest is there any particular reason why you and others are polluting this thread rather than the correct one?

 

I thought this was the 'mixed' group for us all to mingle and get along  

[knocker]

I thought this was the 'mixed' group for us all to mingle and get along  

 

No, but I wasn't referring to you and your query that was perfectly reasonable. I trust the links I posted were okay.

Edited August 15, 2014 by knocker

[Nights King]

No, but I wasn't referring to you and your query that was perfectly reasonable. I trust the links I posted were okay.

 

 

The links were interesting thanks.

 

The trend does seem to be up but it is a rather short period still and maybe another decade on the satellites would be beneficial to see if it is indeed onwards and upwards or even accelerating..

 

I personally think we need longer to truly determine if its natural fluctuation or man made so for me the jury is still out. I would also like to see the longer term influence the sun has on climate and what a grand minimum will do if it goes quiet as forecast. There are just too many uncertainties with predictions and alterations they have made with climate predictions over last 20 years.

 

I agree that cleaning up our act is a good thing for all of us but what bothers me is the dramatization of it all and that if we are on a course of run away global warming a small decrease in C02 production isn't near enough to change anything?

[Paul]

This is a mixed thread, no rules in terms of which side of the 'divide' people are coming from, just needs to be based around evidence and facts rather that I'm right, you're wrong type stuff.

[knocker]

Apologies, my mistake.

[knocker]

A decade of weather extremes

 

 

The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.

 

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/Coumou_Rahmstorf_NCC2012.pdf

[Gray-Wolf]

Yet still folk will instantly deny the findings and demand 'more' time is needed to study or that the 'records' are not extensive enough! Every extreme weather event now appears to be met with both study and the derision of a few that as an event it will be attributed to AGW. Sad really?

 

Here, in 2012, we had two " one in a hundred year" rainfall events ( one 'flash' and one accumulated rainfall over an extended period) and these followed 5 other major flooding events through the late 90's and noughties yet still , when I noted them as extreme ,we had posters linking historical news reports of past (northern England) flood events as though showing records of another such event ( there were none) would prove it a 'non event'???

Edited August 16, 2014 by Gray-Wolf

[mikeworst]

"Here, in 2012, we had two " one in a hundred year" rainfall events ( one 'flash' and one accumulated rainfall over an extended period) and these followed 5 other major flooding events through the late 90's and noughties yet still , when I noted them as extreme ,we had posters linking historical news reports of past (northern England) flood events as though showing records of another such event ( there were none) would prove it a 'non event'???"

 

Here have a dig and then tell me these things are something new. http://134.36.96.5/FMPro?-db=Hydrochronology.FP3&-lay=Layout%20%232&-format=search.htm&-view

[knocker]

 

 

Here have a dig and then tell me these things are something new. http://134.36.96.5/FMPro?-db=Hydrochronology.FP3&-lay=Layout%20%232&-format=search.htm&-view

 

And the relevance of the Thames river basin with the paper by Coumou and Rahmstorf?

[Nights King]

A decade of weather extremes

 

 

http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publications/Nature/Coumou_Rahmstorf_NCC2012.pdf

 

Okay so lets say weather extremes have increased slightly over last 20 years, couldn't this be associated with the high solar cycles of the past 50 years raising temperature a little providing more energy in atmosphere and now we have a quieter cycle it could be naturally altering weather patterns again causing these records of hot and cold in different places due to slight shifts in regional climate?

Edited August 16, 2014 by mullender83

[stewfox]

Okay so lets say weather extremes have increased slightly over last 20 years, couldn't this be associated with the high solar cycles of the past 50 years raising temperature a little providing more energy in atmosphere and now we have a quieter cycle it could be naturally altering weather patterns again causing these records of hot and cold in different places due to slight shifts in regional climate?

 

Its very hard to compare previous years let alone decades and then centuries to the current situation as we never compare like for like. Until we get fundamental increases above the 'natural variability' the question re man made or not will remain open and probably will do in the next 50, 100yrs.

 

----------------------

 

 

Data from hundreds of weather stations located around the U.S. appear to show the planet is getting warmer, but some critics say it's the government's books that are getting cooked -- thanks to temperature readings from sweltering parking lots, airports and other locations that distort the true state of the climate.

 

In other words, Watts says the data show that global warming is due relatively more to increased urbanization than to greenhouse gases. Such a finding would be relevant for whether government should further restrict greenhouse gasses.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record/

Edited August 16, 2014 by stewfox

[knocker]

Dr. Marshall Shepherd, who is Director of the Atmospheric Sciences Program at University of Georgia and 2013 President of the American Meteorological Society has an interesting post relevant to this topic.

 

Recent Urban Floods: A simple equation

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/DrShepherdWxGeeks/comment.html?entrynum=2

[Geoffwood]

Hi guys. I'm afraid I'm going to reiterate the obvious. Apologies to those who already know this.

The Sun provides 99.99% of the energy on Earth. As a variable with a 0.1% TSI span this makes solar variation greater than any the total of all other energy sources by a factor of ten.

This been said the Earth doesn't equilibrate with the 'total' flux but the portion thermalised. Therefore, spectral variation within the limits of TSI variation can increase or decrease the portion thermally absorbed.

Below is an historical reconstruct of TSI

http://lasp.colorado.edu/lisird/tsi/historical_tsi.html

The Earth's climate does naturally vary, as many historical reconstructs show. The Sun drives the hydrological cycle, the horizontal thermal gradient, the diurnal disturbance of the atmosphere from the rest adiabatic that produces weather as part of the energy flow that transports equatorial excess to the polar deficit regions. Ignore with peril the 'apparent' similarity between the TSI profile and global temperature data sets.

[jonboy]

to use TSI is misleading the true influences are the F10 and E10 bands that vary greatly between high cycles to low cycles it is these that are poorly understood and will provide the breakthrough to really understanding what drives our climate!! its not CO2

[knocker]

Turning the question on it's head. Given that the greenhouse effect is not in question what are the reason(s) why a massive increase in atmospheric CO₂  doesn't cause warming?

Edited August 16, 2014 by knocker