• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Onging alarmism about sea level rise without substence.

Sea level
[h=1]Sea Level Rise Accelerating? Not.[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach There’s a recent and good post here at WUWT by Larry Kummer about sea level rise. However, I disagree with a couple of his comments, viz: (b) There are some tentative signs that the rate of increase is already accelerating, rather than just fluctuating. But the data is noisy (lots…
 
Jack Hays said:
Sea level
[h=1]Sea Level Rise Accelerating? Not.[/h]Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach There’s a recent and good post here at WUWT by Larry Kummer about sea level rise. However, I disagree with a couple of his comments, viz: (b) There are some tentative signs that the rate of increase is already accelerating, rather than just fluctuating. But the data is noisy (lots…
Click to expand...

WUNT? You mean the guys that take money from the oil companies.....those guys?
 
Sea level
[h=1]Study: Sea Level Rise Revised Downward[/h]Reposted from Roy Spencer’s Blog July 21st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. If I had not looked past the headline of the press report on a new study, I would have just filed it under “It’s worse than we thought”. A new study in Nature reported on July 17 carried the following headlines:…
 
Jack Hays said:
Sea level
[h=1]Study: Sea Level Rise Revised Downward[/h]Reposted from Roy Spencer’s Blog July 21st, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D. If I had not looked past the headline of the press report on a new study, I would have just filed it under “It’s worse than we thought”. A new study in Nature reported on July 17 carried the following headlines:…
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I really enjoy reading the comments section on articles like this - have I ever mentioned that before? :lamo - because the arguments are so entertaining when well-informed knowledgeable people disagree. It's amusing when veiled insults about another's intelligence are jokingly made to get a point across! Well done indeed because they all seem to be having a good time... :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I really enjoy reading the comments section on articles like this - have I ever mentioned that before? :lamo - because the arguments are so entertaining when well-informed knowledgeable people disagree. It's amusing when veiled insults about another's intelligence are jokingly made to get a point across! Well done indeed because they all seem to be having a good time... :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Glad you enjoyed it.:mrgreen:
 
Well, since this guys observation disagrees with 95% of the models, his observations must be wrong... Right???


 
Upernavik_Glacier_Greenland.jpg

An island at the mouth of Upernavik Glacier on the northwest coast of Greenland, photographed during the September 2016 field campaign of Oceans Melting Greenland. Until 1950, this glacier had one outlet, or terminus, to the ocean. Now, it has melted and retreated up its fjord so far that it has several different termini. In this image, one terminus is at upper left and another hidden by the rock wall at upper center.
 
Media_Truth said:
View attachment 67220884

An island at the mouth of Upernavik Glacier on the northwest coast of Greenland, photographed during the September 2016 field campaign of Oceans Melting Greenland. Until 1950, this glacier had one outlet, or terminus, to the ocean. Now, it has melted and retreated up its fjord so far that it has several different termini. In this image, one terminus is at upper left and another hidden by the rock wall at upper center.
Click to expand...

Yes, soot does nasty things.
 
Substence doesn't make sense.Maybe you meant to say substance.Check your dictionary.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, soot does nasty things.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can just see that black soot all over that island, and the surrounding glaciers. They must have a coal-fired generating plant next-door.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, I can just see that black soot all over that island, and the surrounding glaciers. They must have a coal-fired generating plant next-door.
Click to expand...

Can you distinguish a 5% or 10% in reduction in reflectivity, without a side by side comparison?

Wow, you must have very well calibrated eyes!

Do you realize what changing the reflective from 90% to 80% does to the melt rate of ice?
 
Lord of Planar said:
Can you distinguish a 5% or 10% in reduction in reflectivity, without a side by side comparison?

Wow, you must have very well calibrated eyes!

Do you realize what changing the reflective from 90% to 80% does to the melt rate of ice?
Click to expand...

Yeah, soot - all over the place - up there in Greenland...
 
Media_Truth said:
Yeah, soot - all over the place - up there in Greenland...
Click to expand...

Yes.

It is there, and other aerosols. The albedo of the ice is reduced, and therefore absorbs more energy.

It isn't CO2 melting the ice, but the ice albedo changing due to aerosols. That's why we see a neutral trend in the southern ice, but a loss of ice in the north.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes.

It is there, and other aerosols. The albedo of the ice is reduced, and therefore absorbs more energy.

It isn't CO2 melting the ice, but the ice albedo changing due to aerosols. That's why we see a neutral trend in the southern ice, but a loss of ice in the north.
Click to expand...

That's called a 'feedback mechanism', and just makes the ice melt we already know that's going to be bad from AGW that much worse.

It's not an alternative reason for ice melt, as you like to pretend.
 
Threegoofs said:
That's called a 'feedback mechanism', and just makes the ice melt we already know that's going to be bad from AGW that much worse.

It's not an alternative reason for ice melt, as you like to pretend.
Click to expand...

Direct radiative absorption causing rapid ice melt is not at all related to ice melt from warmer air.
They are two entirely different principals of energy transfer.
and no, soot is not a feedback to AGW.
 
longview said:
Direct radiative absorption causing rapid ice melt is not at all related to ice melt from warmer air.
They are two entirely different principals of energy transfer.
and no, soot is not a feedback to AGW.
Click to expand...

They both melt ice. And soot is recognized as a positive feedback to CO2 .

Odd you don't know that, given your obsession with feedbacks.
 
longview said:
Map shows where New York City could flood first from sea level rise - Business Insider
The funny thing about the story is that the Sea Level at Battery Park, has been falling for 7 years.
https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8518750
The 12 month average peaked in May 02 2010 at 139 mm. since that time,
The sea level has dropped to the April 2017 12 month average of 59 mm, or negative 11 mm per year.
I guess that was not an important datum for their story!
Click to expand...

The glaciers are melting. Where do you think the water is going?
 
longview said:
Direct radiative absorption causing rapid ice melt is not at all related to ice melt from warmer air.
They are two entirely different principals of energy transfer.
and no, soot is not a feedback to AGW.
Click to expand...

If the soot comes from burning fossil fuels it is feedback from that isn't it? Burning fossil fuel is the primary cause of AGW. The more we burn the more soot we make and the faster the Glaciers melt. That does not sound like feedback to you?
 
iguanaman said:
If the soot comes from burning fossil fuels it is feedback from that isn't it? Burning fossil fuel is the primary cause of AGW. The more we burn the more soot we make and the faster the Glaciers melt. That does not sound like feedback to you?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but you need to learn what feedback is in the climate context. Soot isn't.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but you need to learn what feedback is in the climate context. Soot isn't.
Click to expand...

Funny. Climate scientists disagree.

665c005b91ce91e115ea5901f835f0a2.png
 
Threegoofs said:
Funny. Climate scientists disagree.

665c005b91ce91e115ea5901f835f0a2.png
Click to expand...

Forcing and feedback are not the same thing.

An example of a climate forcing is increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. By definition, forcings are external to the climate system while feedbacks are internal; in essence, feedbacks represent the internal processes of the system.

Climate change feedback - Wikipedia


Wikipedia › wiki › Climate_change_feed...

 
Last edited:
Threegoofs said:
They both melt ice. And soot is recognized as a positive feedback to CO2 .

Odd you don't know that, given your obsession with feedbacks.
Click to expand...

Odd that you do not understand physics, when you claim to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom