Actually if mankind weren’t here, ice would be increasing, as we’d be slipping into another glacial phase.
You would know that if you had an ounce of good-faith curiosity within - lordies knows the links to that information have been shared directly with you - but you must ignore all that. Or assume it’s all a lie, so you can ignore it - while you’re glorying your Trump worship.
We are now for the last two years in the cooling phase of earth’s cycles of the Halogen Ice Age. Being that the Intermediate Period lasts 10,000 years. Don’t expect any major changes. It is believed that the cooling to reach the peak of the Ice Age weather takes 10,000 years of cooling and then 90,000 years to warm up again. The cooling is not a straight graph line down to the peak cooling. That’s where the Jumps come into play. For a small example of how the earth can cool you can look at the Younger Dryas period of rapid cooling in the late Pleistocene, 12,800 to 11,500 calendar years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Younger_Dryas_and_Air_Temperature_Changes.jpg
If mankind was not here, then yes earth would be cooling. And with the blanket of manmade CO2 the earth will still be cooling. Just not as fast. Some hypothesis has the cooling delayed by 3,000 years. We know everything seems to operate in up and down cycles. And we could still get a warming cycle in the Lag period we are in. Lags can last 100 to 400 years according to the Ice Core data. The Lag is part of the earth’s cycle that has never been talked about on this site. If you remember CC, I have tried to bring the Lags and Jumps into the discussions many times and you have never responded. What we do have today is that Ice Core data follows the sun cycles perfectly and not the CO2.
As far as the cooler weather. On the timeline it is just about impossible to put a lot of weight on our year to year weather when some of these cycles that can take many lifetimes to complete. According to Dr. Moon we lucked out with the sun cycles right now and we are 2 degrees cooler than if the eleven cycles of the sun were not where, they are right now. And of course, 2 degrees warmer would have you CO2 alarmist jumping with joy.
CC, I would recommend listening to what Tom Wysmuller has to say.
The Colder Side Of Global Warming - Tom Wysmuller - Author and Geologist
A view on sea level rise.
Question. You want links. Then you want to contest those links. Which is easy to do with all the data that has been printed. If you laid the pages of all the data end to end, how many times around the earth would it go? How much data is printed on a daily basis? How much more data are you going to need before you can make a prediction? And I don’t mean a prediction like what the CO2 scientists are doing now. A prediction date that is at least thirty years after they die. The alarmists have been so dishonest and political. And using the children to push their agenda is shameful. They are not progressive at all, they are regressive.
Please tell us what is your holdup on theorizing the CO2 as the driving force?
Splendid, the video starts with, 00:06:
... we have a world here. It's your world, but it's kind of been taken away by Al Gore and the IPCC. Now how they take it away...That's politics - and his following talk is a Gish Gallop that I don't have time for but it's not like I haven't looked at them in detail: https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/p/hall-of-shame.html
also an organized look at all contrarian distractions: https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Please tell us what is your holdup on theorizing the CO2 as the driving force?No hold been done long ago. What the fuk is the point, if you keep ignoring the information???
https://confrontingsciencecontrarians.blogspot.com/2018/01/pruitt-agw-certain-as-certain-gets.htmlCO2 Science - Blue team: "Pruitt, it’s certain as certain gets! It’s the physics! Don’t you know???
Considering that ridicule is a mainstay of the Republican approach to denying climate science, and since CO2 understanding has come under the most unhinged attacks that are based on misrepresenting what scientists have learned, along with paranoia laced arguments from incredulity, it’s important to clearly explain where our understanding comes from.
That’s why after a review of climate science history, I believe the first points the Blue Team should make clear is that “Atmospheric CO2 Science” is as certain as certain gets !
To accomplish that, explain where our greenhouse gas understanding comes from. Namely intensive atmospheric studies made by no nonsense Air Force atmospheric scientists. Nature doesn’t play tricks like people do, through careful study scientists have revealed one natural secret after another. Why in the world would atmospheric radiative transfer physics be any different? On top of all that, many nations studied greenhouse gases independently (we are talking about military secrets back then!) and all those experts came up with the same answers. …
Mike Yohe: "Please tell us what is your holdup on theorizing the CO2 as the driving force?"You could also try googling "Explaining the science behind global warming" lots and lots and lots of resource for the honestly curious and those wanting to learn.
Or if you wanted to be really serious, how about
http://forecast.uchicago.eduGlobal Warming: Understanding the Forecast is a comprehensive introduction to all aspects of global warming. Written in an accessible way, and assuming no specialist prior knowledge, this book examines the processes that control climate change and climate stability, from the distant past to the distant future.
Second Edition now shipping. Thoroughly revised and updated but basically the same material.
On-line interactive computer models allow you to play with the physics and chemistry behind the global warming forecast.
Global Warming: The Science of Climate Change is running now on Coursera, a not-for-profit education company that partners with the top universities and organizations in the world to offer courses online for anyone to take, for free. The video lectures have been completely redone in a punchy 2-10 minute format, with revamped exercises using the updated online models interspersed throughout.
Open Climate 101 brings the experience of University of Chicago class PHSC13400, part of our “core” science curriculum for non-science major undergraduates based on this text, to the internet at large. However, this class seems supplanted by the updated content in the Coursera class (above), so unless lots of people request otherwise, Open Climate 101 will shut down on or about Jan 1, 2014.
Videos of lectures, both in ~45 minute classroom format (recorded Fall, 2009, University of Chicago), and in a 2-12 minute topical format intended for on-line learning (recorded Summer, 2013).
Never quite knowing where Mike is coming from or where he’s going, it’s always nice when he provides something I can try to lookup. “Halogen Ice Age” gave me this for hit #6
This was of interest. The Nonlinear Pattern of Sea Levels: A Case Study of North America by Alberto Boretti. Note; you can buy the book for $109.00 or just a chapter for $29.95. Buy a chapter! How would you know what chapter you wanted?
Anyway, what the book looks at is the rise of sea level along the North American coast lines.
New paper: North America’s West Coast has 20 long-term (90+ years) tide gauges; the East Coast has 33. Of the 53 total tide gauges, 45% (24) are negatively accelerating, 14 document falling sea levels, and just 11 have sea levels rising more than 3 mm/yr.
In this case the data is in chapter 10 of the book.
A political year and all the stories of ice melting are getting in the news. The question still remains – Where is the Water from the Melting Ice Going? We know we are getting warmer just from the natural cycles of the earth. And when water warms, it expands. The oceans should be rising more than being recorded right now just from the water expansion.
In retrospect, the 1990 predictions of future sea level change seem rather bold, because the 1990 IPCC report also concludes that “the average rate of rise over the last 100 years has been 1.0-2.0 mm/yr” and that “there is no firm evidence of accelerations in sea level rise during this century”.
Now let’s look at public view in 2013 –
Evil carbon dioxide from human fossil burning is heating the climate to unprecedented levels.
This is causing glaciers to melt and sea levels to rise at an accelerating and disastrous rate.
The salvation of our planet depends upon an immediate transition to wind and solar energy, electric cars and bicycles, and less consumption-oriented lifestyles.
Is everything really that simple? Yes, you can break it down to the simple form of ice melt and ends up in the ocean. Ocean levels rise. Been working that way forever and we have a general idea of the natural sea level rises caused by Mother Nature.
Problem is we are not even keeping up with Mother Nature sea level rise. And the general public’s understand that what rise we are seeing is disastrous Climate Change rise cause by Co2. It’s now been thirty years and the sea level rise above the natural Mother Nature rise is just not there. The sea level rise is following the political aspect more than any science or facts.
grrrr
(…that was for the blog gremlins, not our mikie.)
The physics that our planet operates under ARE that simple and straightforward, ignore at your own peril.
It’s now been thirty years and the sea level rise above the natural Mother Nature rise is just not there. The sea level rise is following the political aspect more than any science or facts.
One reason why America is heading straight down the shitter is Republicans who are totally happy not learning hearing or learning anything. Keep it cynical, keep distracting, keep ignoring the evidence people are shoving into your self-certain faces (too bad it never makes it into your angry snotty faith-shackled brains.)23 September 2019 14:06
Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise
ZEKE HAUSFATHER (He’s a genuine expert - oh but yeah, the GOP strategy is to ridicule and ignore experts)
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise
With this week’s release of the IPCC Special Report Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate (SROCC), it is useful to take a look at the current understanding of how sea level has changed in the past and may change in the future.
In this explainer, Carbon Brief examines estimates of historical sea level rise and the evidence that rates are accelerating. It explores the drivers of historical and future sea level rise, including thermal expansion of water, melting glaciers and melting ice sheets. Finally, it compares the worst-case projections from the IPCC with other studies published before and after AR5 was released. …
Drivers of sea level rise
While there are clear links between rising global temperatures and sea level, the specific mechanisms by which warming results in SLR are more complex.
One of the major drivers of the SLR the world has experienced in recent decades is not from melting glaciers or ice sheets. Rather, it is driven by the thermal expansion of water. As the ocean warms, seawater becomes less dense and expands, raising sea levels.
The rapid increase in ocean heat content has led to around 19mm of sea level rise just from thermal expansion between 1993 and 2010, around a third of the total increase of 54mm.
The major drivers of annual average sea level rise are shown in the figure below, which is based on data in the IPCC AR5 and covers three overlapping time periods (1901-1990, 1971-2010 and 1993-2010). …
A brief introduction to climate change and sea-level rise
As seas rise, high tides are becoming higher and storm surges are growing more destructive.
Is sea level rising?Is there missing water?
Nope, it’s accounted for.
Yes, sea level is rising at an increasing rate.
Oh but mike, lookie that’s printed by the hated govm’t by the people for the people of the people, can’t read that - let’s see what Exxon has to feed our minds.
Of course in typical societal wide denial they would put that ridiculous title on the story.
It should read “Exxon knew about Anthropogenic Global Warming Almost 40 years ago!!!” Yes, that would be manmade - while the woman were on the sidelines pumping out way the hell more people than this planet can sustain.
But Mike will tell us, Lookie my past decades have been simply wonderful, what crisis, when is this grand global warming going to happen? Guess one would have to extract themselves from People Time to trying to appreciate Earth’s Time Scales.
Please finish the thought. It is dishonest to mislead the public.
Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise.
Please finish the sentence - Explainer: How climate change is accelerating sea level rise by ____%.
This new book - The Nonlinear Pattern of Sea Levels: A Case Study of North America by Alberto Boretti does just that. This in not his data or his findings. It is the actual real data that has been collected at sea level stations along the United States coastline.
What we have is many, many and many scientists who have done research and come up with their own views of sea level rise. And for this century it covers three feet to one-hundred feet. This book does not do this. What it does is say, OK we have ninety years of data from the sea level gauges and this is what has actually been going on. Really simple.
Point one. The oceans are always going up and down from the beginning of time. Called natural cycles caused mostly by the sun cycles. This is backed up by your NOAA link.
The two major causes of global sea level rise are thermal expansion caused by warming of the ocean (since water expands as it warms) and increased melting of land-based ice, such as glaciers and ice sheets. The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.
Next they say.
With continued ocean and atmospheric warming, sea levels will likely rise for many centuries at rates higher than that of the current century.
So, this is all compared to the “current century”. We know everything moves in cycles and a century is a very small part of the climate cycle.
The NOAA does not claim it is cause by Climate Change.
What causes the oceans and the earth to warm? The amount of energy from the sun of course. And this also changes with cycles.
Where are we in the Sun’s energy cycles? We are at the peak of the warmest part of the cycle. With the Lag that follows the cycles. We can expect the earth to continual to heat for the next several centuries even if no humans were on the earth.
The oceans rises with the warming of the earth causing water to expand. And therefore, we should expect sea level rising to increase.
So, what is the Climate Change affect on the earth. 3% is used. Although Climate Change has never reached a 3% change in the weather. But it is the lowest figure that can be used because of the need for tolerances in measurements.
The oceans are absorbing more than 90 percent of the increased atmospheric heat associated with emissions from human activity.
And of that 3% caused by humans, the oceans are absorbing 90% of that. Which means only 0.03% of the weather is affected by Climate Change. And 2.7% of the ocean expansion is affected by humans. Is that not correct?
The Exxon post. You think Exxon is to blame for not making changes that you think they should have?
Are you cooking from a solar stove. Are you using carbon free transportation? I doubt it. Maybe Exxon should be blaming you.
The Exxon post. You think Exxon is to blame for not making changes that you think they should have?Damned straight, EXXON is very close to the center of the campaign of deliberate deception and brainwashing.
But, they were in league with other like minded greedy bastards. Read all about it:
Merchants of Doubt The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.
Are you cooking from a solar stove. Are you using carbon free transportation? I doubt it. Maybe Exxon should be blaming you.Cute bit of absolute insanity their Mike -
Please answer:
What does anyone’s hypocrisy, or lack thereof, have to do with honestly assessing the evidence?
What are we to think of self-certain idiots (excuse me) people, who buy into such transparent childish bullshit???
What does anyone’s hypocrisy, or lack thereof, have to do with honestly assessing the evidence?
What happens is when movements form the hypocrisy kills any logic. This is because of the caste in these movements.
In the Exxon oil spill. The blame was on Exxon. Exxon had a ship. The ship was operated by union operators that were under Federal controls. Exxon had no say as to who the captain was. The Federal Regulations licensed and regulated the captain. All Exxon could do was say we have a ship that will be ready to leave on this date and needs to go to this port. The union flies a captain to the ship according to government regulations.
What did Exxon do wrong?
Unions work under federal laws. Tankers operate under federal laws and regulations. The captains set the course of the tanker. Not Exxon. Exxon really got screwed in that deal. The federal government regulations were to blame. Exxon could not operate without federal government approval. Therefore, Exxon could not sue the federal government.
The logic of what has evolved is quite simple. Answer the question – Why does Exxon hire attorneys and companies to combat public opinion?
The answer is because of people like you who are hypocrites and greedy. What power you have by your vote you use to put the people serving you out of business. You don’t go after the real problem, the government. Because most of the hypocrites in the nation either work for the government or owe the government money or are getting money from the government.
So, if you own a ship and had no power to control the captain of your ship or decide who will be the captain of your ship and had to rely on the government licensing and the union operating under government maritime laws to pilot your ship and the government licensed pilot wrecked your ship and cost you billions. How would you feel if the crazy people blamed you?
The same with the California Santa Barbara oil spill that shut down coastal drilling in California.
You drill the hole for the surface casing. Then logging companies log the hole. Those logging reports goes to the State of California geologists who then decide the cementing requirements for the surface casing. Then cementing companies cement in the surface casing and the logging companies come back and re-log the hole. The reports go to the State geologists who then approve or dis-approve the surface casing work. In other words, the State geologists set the required depth of each hole and the system and method to be used in setting the surface pipe and blow out prevention system. And the State geologist have to say how the work is to be done and sign off that the work was done the way they wanted it done and then give you permission to start drilling a hole.
You have no say in the matter on the hole you want to drill. It is all controlled by the State. Your job up to this point is to pay all the bills. Then the hole blows out and all the sudden it is all your fault according to the protesters and the news media. Where is the logic in that?
That evidence is not new. It has always been there. If there was no hypocrisy. Then Exxon and the Santa Barbara spill would have never been blamed on the oil companies and the people would have protested against the government regulators.
Today you are bitching about the CO2 in the air. If you had not shut down the geothermal energy, we would have no need to use nuclear or coal. It is of your own making for being hypocritical about assessing the evidence. You made the pathway for DDT and tobacco companies to fight by using public views instead of evidence.
When I say you, of course I am talking about the movements and ideas you are backing.