Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference.
That is exactly how I measured temperature when I was fishing tuna...Sea water temperature is very important in tuna fishing.....Of course it is accurate....The key word here is cooling water intake.
Incidentally your argument makes no sense since you left out the last part of your copy and paste from the article....
Here is the entire thing....
In the past, ship measurements were taken by throwing a bucket over the side, bringing some ocean water on deck and putting a thermometer in it. Today, temperatures are recorded by reading thermometers in the engine coolant water intake — this is considered a more accurate measure of ocean temperature. The bucket readings used early in the record were cooler than engine intake observations, so the early data have been adjusted warmer to account for that difference. This makes global temperatures indicate less warming than the raw data does.
One area doesn't rise while another area falls.
Remember, water seeks it's own level.
Falling sea levels don't equate to "a continual rise".
Actually the sea level does not rise equally everywhere because currents and prevailing winds have more effect in some areas than they do in others.....Just like temperatures, science works on averages, and takes into account other factors like post glacial rebound, erosion of land masses etc... These are easily measured by satellite....Even the GPS navigator in my car tells me the elevation of the roads I drive.
I seem to remember forest fires have occurred naturally in the past when humans weren't around to start them. So logically, that means humans cannot possibly start forest fires today.
I seem to remember that atmospheric C02 levels have risen and declined naturally in the past. So logically that means that humans can't have anything to do with the rising levels of C02 in the atmosphere in the past 100 years.
Oh wait....
Not at all .But it shows that even without humans such things happen naturally. Apples to oranges ;really. Ice age coming doesn't prove warmer climate coming even humans causing either. Often one has to look to money (grants) in consider either claims by those involved.
We know how wonderfully accurate those predictions have been so far.
Refined satellite data predicting that the sea level rise will speed up in the next few decades.
So far the predictions have been pretty accurate, ask anyone living in St Augustine, Fl, Norfolk, Baltimore, Philadelphia or just about any city along the shoreline as they are already seeing increased flooding.
You need to learn to beleive what you can see with your own eyes if you can't comphrehend the predictions.
Not at all .But it shows that even without humans such things happen naturally. Apples to oranges ;really. Ice age coming doesn't prove warmer climate coming even humans causing either. Often one has to look to money (grants) in consider either claims by those involved.
GHGs don't naturally change that much in such a short time period as 100 years. It's physically impossible unless there is some external mechanism involved - like burning massive amounts of millions of years old fossil fuels taken from deep out of the ground for years on end. It would take thousands of years to raise C02 levels from 280ppm to 400ppm in the atmosphere naturally. Changes in insolation from orbital phases take tens of thousands of years and are only a trigger for changes in the global climate, the rest has mostly to do with changes in 'greenhouse' gas levels. We aren't even in a natural warming phase as far as the orbital changes go, but a long slight cooling trend with minor ups and downs since the peak of the Holocene Climatic Optimum about 8000 years ago that would be continuing naturally for thousands of years to come if humans hadn't started changing the composition of the atmosphere (not to mention deforestation reducing natural CO2 sinks). The sun's output hasn't varied much at all in the past 50 years while the global average temperature has been rising rapidly. Scientists know that increasing 'greenhouse' gas levels causes the stratosphere to cool while the surface warms- something that wouldn't happen if the warming was just from the sun and not from infrared radiation absorbed by GHGs and reradiated back towards the earth's surface. Scientists know the additional C02 is from burning fossils fuels because of the changes in the ratio of C12/13 in the C02 in the atmosphere. Scientists know that the pH levels in the ocean are changing as they absorb a lot more of that C02 pumped into the atmosphere by humans.
Much of the science of global warming is basic physics and chemistry learned over the last 150 years or so from research by scientists that were not even involved in climate science. There are many lines of evidence that have converged from many different fields of science.
The average lay person wouldn't have a clue how much science is involved in this unless they took the time to study it. I only just scratched the surface with a couple of highlights with those comments above. Watch that short lecture from the National Academy of Sciences Symposium I posted by Prof Richard Alley and you'll get a brief overview of what scientists know about the earth's climate history and what the evidence is for what they know about glaciation/deglaciation and global climate changes etc.
Do you really feel you know enough about the science involved to offer an informed opinion?
Instead, you are suggesting a global conspiracy on an impossibly complex massive level spanning the last 100 years or so involving all sorts of fakery and corruption in many different fields of science that were not even involved in climate science research. Is that really plausible? Seriously?
The ice sheets melting in Antartica and Greenland are not in the Ocean that accounts for 1/3 of the rise, expanding oceans and melting glaciers are the remainder.
NASA has plenty of work without climate change but if it makes you feel better carry on.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "Inter-Glacial Period."
The Greenland Ice Sheet is only ~110,000 years old.
Why do you suppose that is?
Well, it's because during the last Inter-Glacial Period, it completely melted.
Glaciers are supposed to melt during Inter-Glacial Periods, and the sea levels are supposed to rise. That is what is supposed to happen, and that is science, not fantasy.
So far, this Inter-Glacial Period is colder than the previous 8, and more than 10°F colder than the previous one.
If by some miracle, the average global temperatures should increase 10.4°F, the only thing you can say is that it is as warm as the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
I don't think you understand the meaning of "Inter-Glacial Period."
The Greenland Ice Sheet is only ~110,000 years old.
Why do you suppose that is?
Well, it's because during the last Inter-Glacial Period, it completely melted.
Glaciers are supposed to melt during Inter-Glacial Periods, and the sea levels are supposed to rise. That is what is supposed to happen, and that is science, not fantasy.
So far, this Inter-Glacial Period is colder than the previous 8, and more than 10°F colder than the previous one.
If by some miracle, the average global temperatures should increase 10.4°F, the only thing you can say is that it is as warm as the previous Inter-Glacial Period.
That, is science.
Where did I state that Greenland always had ice sheets?
Prior Inter-Glacial temperature changes of around 5 deg happened over the course of some 5000 years. We have a 1.5 degree increase over 100 years with predictions that it could increase between 2-6 degrees over the course of 200 years, that is unprecendented.
Solar radiation changes slowly over time not to these extremes and the prior CO2 levels were around 150-280ppm, now we are at 400ppm. This is not natural.
Actually the sea level does not rise equally everywhere because currents and prevailing winds have more effect in some areas than they do in others.....Just like temperatures, science works on averages, and takes into account other factors like post glacial rebound, erosion of land masses etc... These are easily measured by satellite....Even the GPS navigator in my car tells me the elevation of the roads I drive.
I couldn't help but notice the scary picture of a lighthouse being savaged by the ocean in the article. I live at an elevation pretty close to sea level and I guess that is what i can expect?
[MOD CUT/copyright violation]
A few questions about the article
1) What is nuisance flooding? By the 2050s, sea level rise is likely to cross a tipping point for 26 major U.S. cities, which can expect at least 30 days of “nuisance flooding” each year.
2) What does adjusts mean? "adjusts satellite readings taken from hundreds of miles above the Earth to measure small changes in sea level heights around the globe since the early 1990s."
3) Assuming this claim is correct. How much did they rise before? "Sea levels have risen by about a foot since 1900 and the rise is projected to continue accelerating into at least the next century."
4) Is a little over 8 inches about a foot? "Based on a small number (~25) of high-quality tide gauge records from stable land regions, the rate of sea level rise has been estimated as 1.8 mm yr–1 for the past 70 years (Douglas, 2001; Peltier, 2001), and Miller and Douglas (2004) find a range of 1.5 to 2.0 mm yr–1 for the 20th century from 9 stable tide gauge sites." 1.8 mm times 100 years= 180mm = 7.08661 inches.
I don't neccesarily buy those figures either but they could be right.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 09-08-2015 at 01:20 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
