Observational data do not support the sea level rise scenario
Falcon
Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel M�rner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the
Maldives Sea Level Project.
Abstracts:
"Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is
what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a
linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global
temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up
and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar
variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets are so
contaminated by personal interpretations and personal choices that it is
almost impossible to sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.
"In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded
in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to consider on
Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc."
Source: http://xrl.us/bf3i9h (Link to www.publications.parliament.uk)
--
Falcon:
fide, sed cui vide. (L)
Comments that are political in nature will be ignored.
Ouroboros Rex
> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel M�rner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of
> the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
> Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
>
> Abstracts:
>
> "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day.
> This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is
> that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the
> atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that
> temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we
> see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2.
Um, no.
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-problem.html
> For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal
> interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to
> sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.
> "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
> scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
> should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively
> flooded in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to
> consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic
> eruptions, etc."
> Source: http://xrl.us/bf3i9h (Link to www.publications.parliament.uk)
He should probably go dowsing to reinforce his fantasy.
http://www.desmogblog.com/nils-axel-morner
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1114
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33225_Kook_Lies_About_Lies
At least he is no longer lying about being President of INQUA - a
scientific body that overwhelmingly disagrees with him.
Now, on the subject at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/slr/
Chris
> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner:
>
> From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with
> Solar variability; not CO2. For the last 30 years, our data sets
> are so contaminated by personal interpretations and personal
> choices that it is almost impossible to sort up the mess in
> reliable and unreliable data.
I find it unlikely that measurements of solar radiation and global
temperature have become unreliable in the last 30 years.
Furthermore, that happens to be the time during which the linear
relationship breaks down.
http://tinyurl.com/MaxPlanckSolarInfluence
"Two scientists from the MPI for Solar System Research have
calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters
affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest
models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s
magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They
come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel
to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun
has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this
influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also
clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its
ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the
11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant
increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up
considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is
not the cause of the present global warming."
leona...@gmail.com
> > Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of
> > the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
> > Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
>
> > Abstracts:
>
> > "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day.
> > This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is
> > that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the
> > atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that
> > temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we
> > see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2.
>
> Um, no.
•• OuroRabies says no -- that means that
Dr Axel Morner is right on!
>
> http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-proble...
>
> http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/...
•• Two AGW alarmist sites without reason.
Just like OuroRabies.
> > For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal
> > interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to
> > sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.
> > "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
> > scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
> > should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively
> > flooded in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to
> > consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic
> > eruptions, etc."
** In the fall of 1988 a journalist interviewed
James Hansen, who pontificated that NYC
would be flooded in 20 years. Two weeks
ago, the same journalist asked Hansen why
the sea levels have neither risen nor fallen,
he feebly said "well maybe in another 20
or 30 years." Then he went off in a long
and stupid gloom and doom scenario
suitable for a dungeons and dragons game.
– –
. In real science the burden of proof is always
. on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
. neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
. iota of valid data for global warming nor have
. they provided data that climate change is being
. effected by commerce and industry, and not by
. natural phenomena.
leona...@gmail.com
•• I don't know whether it is your source or you
that is confused.
I have been following the work of the Max
Planck Institute since 1948 and your text does
not have the Max Planck style.
Further they would not cite the "the cause of
the present global warming" since we are in
a cooling trend.
---===o===---
The mechanics here are simple. The earth is getting
warmer in some areas thanks to the heat being given
off by the seas – picture standing next to a pot of
boiling water – you'll feel the heat. Stand next to a
heated ocean and you'll feel the warmth.
When that warm air coming north from the tropics
meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it
creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south
and the colder the air from the north, the more violent
the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and
blizzards are some of the results.
This process feeds on itself. As the amount of
atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is
sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build
heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to
decrease in summertime because the cloud cover
created by the moisture-laden air transported from the
tropics prevents any thawing.
As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more
magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators,
creating more volcanic activity, which spews more
and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere,
along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses.
This results in greater and greater amounts of
moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward. And so on.
As the glaciation process continues, winters will get
longer and longer; that's colder air reaches farther and
farther toward the equator. Summers will get shorter
and shorter, and growing seasons will slowly vanish.
Areas previously blessed with temperate climates are
transformed into subarctic regions, and the subtropics
turn colder and colder.
And all this can happen in a matter of a very few years.
So few, that the world may very well learn that the
interglacial period has been replaced by the glaciation
process before the end of the next decade — or even
earlier.
— —
Chris
wrote:
>
> •• I don't know whether it is your source or you
> that is confused.
> I have been following the work of the Max
> Planck Institute since 1948 and your text does
> not have the Max Planck style.
>
Did you check the link I provided?
Falcon
Peter Muehlbauer wrote:
> "Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel M�rner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
>> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
>> INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of
>> the Maldives Sea Level Project.
>>
>> Abstracts:
>>
>> "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This
>> is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that
>> there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere
>> and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has
>> constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear
>> relationship with Solar variability; not CO2.
>
> Not 1970, but rather 1980.
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious1.png
>
> From 1980 the climate fake began.
>
> I'm not quite sure, because all is still in analysis by some close
> scientist friends, but it looks like a huge error in data evaluation.
>
> Just see what happens, if the T-graph after 1980 is mirrored down.
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious2.png
>
> Remarkable, isn't it?
Spooky. A precedent for accidental inversion certainly exists; Kaufman did
inadvertently turn the millennial temperature reconstruction from
Korttaj�rvi upside down, and I suppose it's rather inconvenient that there
is no way to replicate HadCrut's validity. It's still hard to believe that
some of the world's most important scientific measurements have gone
missing.
I M @ good guy
Know any more jokes?
Climate science claims that all sources of heat
other than the sun are negligible, so the sun is the
cause of all heating.
Clouds and snow cover areas are so variable,
just incidental increases or decreases at the same
time can cause huge changes in the energy balance.
And how can a computer model treat this,
chances are there is no routine that follows through
with year after year increases in both snow cover
and cloud cover, with even the amount of the
overlap of the two causing a third variable that
would have to have a parameter assigned.
Frankly, the sample code snippets that have
been posted in different places are so juvenile
they should be the laugh of the computer room.
From all indications it seems that the melting
since the last glacial has been slowing for 1,000
years or more, but continues at ever higher elevations
due to sublimation ablation and lack of snow fall.
The big worry should be any return of the
ice sheets, even spreading black dust might not
be enough to melt the ice, the Air Force tried that
to create smooth runways in polar regions, it
worked, but the water refroze in place (as planned).
The graphs of the arctic sea ice extent do not
show a progression, so why do the alarmist say
there will be a progression in melting?
Glaciers at lower latitudes at higher elevations
will likely continue to melt because temperatures
have not cooled a lot since the big melt down from
12,000 to 20,000 years ago.
That should be a very easy scenario to visualize,
it got a lot hotter, and stayed hotter, so things will
continue to melt.
Roger Coppock
[ . . . ]
> "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
> scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
> should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded
> in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to consider on
> Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc."
Here are better data on GLOBAL sea level;
-- Rising sea level:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png
http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/issea.pdf
As for the relationship between solar variability
and global mean temperature, please see:
The problem with claims for a solar cause of
global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
global mean surface temperature. All three of
these show no long term trend large enough to
explain the observed warming, only an 11-year
cycle. What century long trends there are are
decreases, in the wrong direction to explain
the warming of the Earth.
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg
http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42
To cause the current warming, an increase of about
3 Watts per square meter over the last century
is needed. The Sun has not made that increase
recently, period, end of story.
Also, over the last century:
--- Nighttime warming was greater than daytime warming.
--- Winter warming was greater than Summer warming.
--- Land warming was greater than sea warming.
--- High latitude warming is greater than equatorial warming.
--- The troposphere warmed, while the stratosphere cooled.
These patterns are totally inconsistent with a solar cause of
the observed warming over the same period.
Bill Ward
> "Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
>> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
>> INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of
>> the Maldives Sea Level Project.
>>
>> Abstracts:
>>
>> "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This
>> is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that
>> there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere
>> and global temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has
>> constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear
>> relationship with Solar variability; not CO2.
>
> Not 1970, but rather 1980.
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious1.png
>
> From 1980 the climate fake began.
>
> I'm not quite sure, because all is still in analysis by some close
> scientist friends, but it looks like a huge error in data evaluation.
>
> Just see what happens, if the T-graph after 1980 is mirrored down.
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious2.png
>
> Remarkable, isn't it?
Sometimes an anti-correlation is even more interesting than a
correlation. It's like getting zero on a true/false test.
Something apparently flipped phase in 1980.
OuroborosRex
> On Nov 9, 3:11 pm, "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>> Falcon wrote:
>>> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of
>>> the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution,
>>> Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
>>> Abstracts:
>>> "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day.
>>> This is what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is
>>> that there is a linear relationship between CO2 increase in the
>>> atmosphere and global temperature. The fact, however, is that
>>> temperature has constantly gone up and down. From 1850 to 1970, we
>>> see an almost linear relationship with Solar variability; not CO2.
>> Um, no.
>
> Dr Axel Morner is right on!
>> http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/the-sun-is-the-proble...
>>
>> http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/updraft/...
>
> Just like OuroRabies.
>
>>> For the last 30 years, our data sets are so contaminated by personal
>>> interpretations and personal choices that it is almost impossible to
>>> sort up the mess in reliable and unreliable data.
>>> "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
>>> scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
>>> should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively
>>> flooded in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to
>>> consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic
>>> eruptions, etc."
>
> ** In the fall of 1988 a journalist interviewed
> James Hansen, who pontificated that NYC
> would be flooded in 20 years. Two weeks
> ago, the same journalist asked Hansen why
> the sea levels have neither risen nor fallen,
> he feebly said "well maybe in another 20
> or 30 years." Then he went off in a long
> and stupid gloom and doom scenario
> suitable for a dungeons and dragons game.
>
> . In real science the burden of proof is always
> . on the proposer, never on the sceptics. So far
> . neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one
> . iota of valid data for global warming nor have
> . they provided data that climate change is being
> . effected by commerce and industry, and not by
> . natural phenomena.
>
As always, lenny just lies. lol
OuroborosRex
>> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
>> INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of the
>> Maldives Sea Level Project.
>>
>> Abstracts:
>>
>> "Climate is becoming increasingly warmer we hear almost every day. This is
>> what has become known as Global Warming. The driving idea is that there is a
>> linear relationship between CO2 increase in the atmosphere and global
>> temperature. The fact, however, is that temperature has constantly gone up
>> and down. From 1850 to 1970, we see an almost linear relationship with Solar
>> variability; not CO2.
>
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious1.png
>
> From 1980 the climate fake began.
>
> I'm not quite sure, because all is still in analysis by some close scientist
> friends, but it looks like a huge error in data evaluation.
>
> Just see what happens, if the T-graph after 1980 is mirrored down.
>
> http://img.umweltluege.de/curious2.png
>
> Remarkable, isn't it?
Where are the graphs stolen from?
leona...@gmail.com
> On Nov 9, 10:41 am, "Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
> > scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
> > should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively flooded
> > in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to consider on
> > Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc."
>
> Here are better data on GLOBAL sea level;
•• You mean better on the bullshit level.
> As for the relationship between solar variability
> and global mean temperature, please see:
>
> The problem with claims for a solar cause of
> global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
> and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
> global mean surface temperature. All three of
> these show no long term trend large enough to
> explain the observed warming, only an 11-year
> cycle. What century long trends there are are
> decreases, in the wrong direction to explain
> the warming of the Earth.
•• Why must you post all these phony boloney
AGW alarmist sites? It appears that YOU
can not handle the truth. Perhaps you should
be on the lookout for when the boys in white
coats come calling for you.
>
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txthttp://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpghttp://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
> http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg
•• Do you expect anyone to accept the data on
YOUR site? Only AGW crazies would.
>
> http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Wea...
•• ROTFLMAO worse than sciencedaily and it is bad enough
> http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rul...
•• New scientist -- AGW propaganda site
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm
•• ROTFLMAO ~ BBC hardly scientific. Just
fascist propaganda, but then you LIKE that.
>
> http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pr...
>
> http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html
>
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42
•• 3 more AGW alarmist sites.
>
> To cause the current warming, an increase of about
> 3 Watts per square meter over the last century
> is needed. The Sun has not made that increase
> recently, period, end of story.
•• That is right. The Sun has not made that increase
recently, and we are in a cooling trend - end of story
— —
o no b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:beb3f237-757f-4288...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...To cause the current warming, an increase of ...
======================================
... URANISATION over the last century
is needed.
Poor Station Location Causes Warm Temperature Bias
Roger Pielke Sr
February 19 2008
Photographic Documentation of Poor Sitings - Part III From Our JGR Paper
Part I and II of this series of weblogs, discussed the serious limited value
of the use of a global average surface temperature anomaly to diagnose the
global radiative imbalance (i.e., global climate heat system changes), and
of a warm bias in the diagnosis of a global average surface temperature
trend when the minimum temperatures are used in its construction.
In Part III, we discuss yet another serious issue that we raised in our
paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K.
Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R.
Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved
issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature
trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229,
where we report,
Major problems with the microclimate exposure of a subset of surface
Historical Climate Network (HCN) sites have been photographed Easterling et
al. 1996; Davey and Pielke 2005]. The temperature instruments that are used
in the HCN are often sited close to buildings, under trees, and near other
local influences on the microclimate. These microclimate influences also
change over time."
The issue of the spatial and temporal representation of the temperature data
that is collected is so fundamental that it is a scandal for any climate
assessment that constructs a global average surface temperature to ignore
this issue.
Anthony Watts has, therefore, provided us a critically important study to
document these surface temperature measurement sites, since the US
government agency tasked with this responsibility (the National Climate Data
Center; NCDC) has refused to provide this photographic documentation,
despite information that they actually have accomplished this task (the
implication is that they are too embarrassed to show them to the public).
The extensive photographic library already completed under the direction of
Anthony Watts with his volunteers can be accessed at "Weather Stations".
This a rich source of information, and I urge readers of Climate Science to
access his website.
Two further excellent examples of further analysis of the issue of poor
station exposure can be read at
Mahmood, Rezaul , Stuart A. Foster, and David Logan, 2006: The Geoprofile
metadata, exposure of instruments, and measurement bias in climatic record
revisited International Journal of Climatology
and
Brooks, Ashley Victoria. M.S., Purdue University, May, 2007. Assessment of
the Spatiotemporal Impacts of Land Use Land Cover Change on the Historical
Climate Network Temperature Trends in Indiana. Major Professors: Dev Niyogi
and Michael Baldwin.
The message from these analyses is that the use of the surface temperature
record from such observation sites to construct regional-, zonal- and
global- averages introduces a bias (which is expected to be a significant
warm bias) of an unknown magnitude. That this issue has not been questioned
in the climate assessments nor by most of the media reports of the
assessments is a scandal.
The conclusions we have reached with respect to the poor siting of the
surface temperature measurement sites, for use in multi-decadal trend
assessments, include:
the poorly sited locations can not be "corrected" by using nearby better
sited locations in order to provide added sources of independent data; see
Pielke Sr., R.A. J. Nielsen-Gammon, C. Davey, J. Angel, O. Bliss, N.
Doesken, M. Cai., S. Fall, D. Niyogi, K. Gallo, R. Hale, K.G. Hubbard, X.
Lin, H. Li, and S. Raman, 2007: Documentation of uncertainties and biases
associated with surface temperature measurement sites for climate change
assessment. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 88:6, 913-928., where we concluded
that"The use of temperature data from poorly sited stations can lead to a
false sense of confidence in the robustness of multidecadal surface air
temperature trend assessments".
The serious problem with poor sited surface temperature stations is a
worldwide problem, based on our sampling so far (e.g., see for Mongolia and
see for a range of locations around the globe).
The World Meteorological Organization and the National Climate Date Center
have been derelict in obtaining photographic documentation of these
observing sites.
Readers of Climate Science are encouraged to photograph the surface
temperature sites in their country of residence, that are used to construct
the land based contribution to the global average surface temperature
anomalies, and send to Anthony Watts in be included in his very important
(and essential) archiving of this information (his website for this is Watts
Up With That and at Anthony Watt's Searchable Online Data Base ).
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
o no b
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:beb3f237-757f-4288...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
======================================
... URANISATION over the last century
is all that is needed.
Al Bedo
> The problem with claims for a solar cause of
> global warming is that solar output, sunspots,
> and cosmic rays, show no large correlation with
> global mean surface temperature.
You're right!
Solar forcing could not POSSIBLY explain why the
twentieth century warmed, nor why late twentieth
century temperatures were the warmest on record.
Oh, wait... I guess it could:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCC/FORCING/solar.constant.png
Dumbass.
leona...@gmail.com
•• That was mean of you to teaze poor Roger like that.
You might have spoiled his lunch. <GG>
erschro...@gmail.com
> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
Now stick that "obersvational data" in your pipe.
Of course, Morner does have one ability regarding water I guess you
respect -- he believes in finding underground water with a wooden
stick (water dowsing).
Falcon
erschro...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Nov 9, 1:41 pm, "Falcon" <fal...@invalid.net> wrote:
>> Memorandum by Professor Nils-Axel M�rner, Head of Paleogeophysics &
>> Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden President, (1999-2003) of the
>> INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, Leader of
>> the Maldives Sea Level Project.
[..]
>> "In conclusion; observational data do not support the sea level rise
>> scenario. On the contrary, they seriously contradict it. Therefore, we
>> should free the world from the condemnation of becoming extensively
>> flooded in the near future. There are more urgent natural problems to
>> consider on Planet Earth like tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions,
>> etc."
>>
>> Source:http://xrl.us/bf3i9h(Link towww.publications.parliament.uk)
>>
> http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
>
> Now stick that "obersvational data" in your pipe.
[snipped ad hominem comment]
If you look at http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_noib_ns_global.jpg
closely, you can see that since about 2006 there has been little appreciable
rise in sea level. From 1994 to 2006 there was a steady rise, but something
has happened in the climate system in the last few years that has not been
explained.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/Fig2b.gif shows sea surface
temperatures since 1990, which is data from Jim Hansen's group, NASA-GISS.
You can see the big peak about 1998, which was El Ni�o, then it rapidly
cooled, followed by warming. No one can explain why it cooled so rapidly. In
the last six years or so, it shows a slight cooling. I agree with Jim Hansen
that upper ocean heat content, because it has so much mass, is probably the
most appropriate metric to look at global warming or global cooling. Upper
ocean heat content of the top 700 m of ocean (ARGO data analyzed by Willis
and Loehle and Pielke) also shows an overall decline since 2004.
It seems to me that we appear to have shifted in the last several years to a
different pattern than we had in the 1990s.
leona...@gmail.com
I M @ good guy
>The mechanics here are simple. The earth is getting
>warmer in some areas thanks to the heat being given
>off by the seas – picture standing next to a pot of
>boiling water – you'll feel the heat. Stand next to a
>heated ocean and you'll feel the warmth.
What ocean are you talking about, I stood
next to the Pacific on Malibu Beach and froze my
butt off in August.
Oh, I see, the Indian Ocean, Indonesia, and
North Australia;
http://www.remss.com/sst/sst_data_daily.html?sat=mw_ir
>When that warm air coming north from the tropics
>meets the frigid air coming south from the pole, it
>creates violence. And the hotter the air from the south
>and the colder the air from the north, the more violent
>the collision will be. Tornadoes, violent storms, and
>blizzards are some of the results.
Right, I remember the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
>This process feeds on itself. As the amount of
>atmospheric moisture increases more precipitation is
>sent poleward, resulting in more snowfall to build
>heavier and heavier polar ice packs which fail to
>decrease in summertime because the cloud cover
>created by the moisture-laden air transported from the
>tropics prevents any thawing.
I hope not. But it doesn't get hot when there
is more moisture, it only gets really hot with very
low humidity.
>As the ice packs grow deeper and heavier, more
>magma is squeezed out and sent toward the equators,
>creating more volcanic activity, which spews more
>and more volcanic ash into the upper atmosphere,
>along with enormous quantities of greenhouse gasses.
>This results in greater and greater amounts of
>moisture-laden clouds being sent poleward. And so on.
What an imagination.
>As the glaciation process continues, winters will get
>longer and longer; that's colder air reaches farther and
>farther toward the equator. Summers will get shorter
>and shorter, and growing seasons will slowly vanish.
And what causes it?
>Areas previously blessed with temperate climates are
>transformed into subarctic regions, and the subtropics
>turn colder and colder.
>
>And all this can happen in a matter of a very few years.
>So few, that the world may very well learn that the
>interglacial period has been replaced by the glaciation
>process before the end of the next decade — or even
>earlier.
Too bad it has never happened that way, the
ice ages have all been a gradual cool down over
thousands of years, and only stay maximum cool
for a little while.
mrbawana2u
All your garbage proved nothing, you pathetic brain cancer infected
retard.
How much time do you have left?
leona...@gmail.com
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:19:14 -0800 (PST), "leonard7...@gmail.com"
>
> <leonard7...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The mechanics here are simple. The earth is getting
> >warmer in some areas thanks to the heat being given
> >off by the seas – picture standing next to a pot of
> >boiling water – you'll feel the heat. Stand next to a
> >heated ocean and you'll feel the warmth.
>
> What ocean are you talking about, I stood
> next to the Pacific on Malibu Beach and froze my
> butt off in August.
•• Sorry Bud ~~
you should have been in Miami or Cancun