U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds

言語: JP EN DE FR
2010-06-21
New Items
users online
フォーラム » Everything Else » Politics and Religion » U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
U.S. Climate Has Already Changed, Study Finds
First Page 2 3 ... 45 46
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Offline
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
user: ChaosX128
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-08-25 04:02:08  
Valefor.Endoq said: »
Asura.Saevel said: »
At no point in time did I ever state anything you are argueing against in relation to pollution
My mistake, that was Chaosx.
I apologize for that.

I was reading several post and got them mixed up later into my editing.
I never said pollution doesn't matter either. I'm with Saevel on this point:
Asura.Saevel said: »
I view Global Warming theology and environmental pollution as two separate issues

EDIT: I would even take a step further and say I do believe that the climate changes. But to attribute humans and their release of CO2 as both being the main culprit is not something I endorse.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9658
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-25 06:41:18  
Quote:
1) Human activity causing more than normal amounts of carbon dioxide and other notable gases to enter the atmosphere

Define "normal"?

1900's normal
1500's normal
-2000 BC normal
-60,000 BC normal
-400,000 BC normal
-65,000,000 BC normal?

Each period had a different amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, some of those phases had CO2 about 4~5x the amount it is now. There were no humans around to cause this.

Quote:
2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 levels causing irregular atmospheric conditions (warming), altering weather patterns (climate change)

*** prove this. So far there has been zero increase in global temperatures for over the past eighteen years. Not a single climate model predicts this, every last one of them has us burning up with snow being a distant memory.


Quote:
3) The resulting damage from the changes to climates and the atmosphere

Again *** prove this. You don't get to hand waive and say "just trust me folks".

Quote:
So here's some links to Nature (a world-renowned, heavily vetted scientific journal), though unfortunately all I can pull up are abstracts. Full peer-reviewed scholarly articles regularly require a fee to access, though I doubt any of you would read through an entire article. I can dig up more, and from other sources if this doesn't satisfy anyone.

I frequently read the full articles, and actually understand what they are saying. Nature Magazine is now a joke, they are one of the entities implicated in the Climategate emails and are responsible for shutting out dissenting opinions of Climate science. There is no peer review process anymore, instead the senior editor stands approves the submission of his friends and then they approve his submissions. This was another problem revealed after the emails were released, you had a group of people agreeing before hand to approval each others submissions "for the cause". "Nature" magazine is about as reliable now as Mother Jones. It has lost a ton of credibility in the last decade after Phil Jones and his crew were outed as having colluded to control the message. Again when confronted about it the response was typically "it's for a good cause".


Now while your at it, here is a prime example

http://earlywarn.blogspot.kr/2010/08/climate-alarmism-at-science-magazine.html

Quote:
Look at the "Slope" part. The slope is -0.05 (in agreement with what Excel came up with in the graph above), but the standard error in the slope is 0.1 - in other words the negative slope is less than the expected uncertainty in the slope, and the result is very much not statistically significant. Roughly what this means is that, given this level of year-to-year noise, even if there was no real trend up or down, we would expect to get a trend reading between -0.1 and +0.1 about 2/3 of the time. So the -0.05 trend is entirely consistent with just being noise, and is not good evidence of a reduction in NPP.

I should stress here that we are not doing advanced theoretical ecology here. This is the kind of stuff scientists learn in their first undergrad stats class, or in my case, in first year undergraduate physics labs. Uncertainty analysis, OLS regressions for straight lines, etc, is absolutely basic stuff if one is a scientist.

So, I read the rest of the paper to see if I'm missing something, and when it seems like I'm not (the rest of the paper is mainly concerned with the drought/NPP connection and is quite interesting), I email the authors of the paper. I start off with Maosheng Zhao, the listed correspondence author, who is a research scientist with the Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group at University of Montana, Missoula. My initial email was as follows:

Here is a copy of the exchange


Basically the folks who did this "science" knew damn good and well it was complete ***, yet still wrote it in an alarmist way, was rubber stamped and put out as "real science". When discussing why they did this, their answer is "it's for a good cause".

That is why I always read the full study, including how they collected data, was it a primary or proxy study and what the error bars are for each statistical correlation. Instead of just taking the words of some biased reporter to interpret the study for me, I read it myself and interpret it myself. And if there is any part that I might not understand, I actually have access to a whole slew of scientists to ask about it. The majority opinion among scientists is currently that "Climate Change" alarmist is complete *** and unscientific. Nature magazine and other major publications refuse to publish any study or research that refutes the Climate Change Theory. Too much government grant money is on the line and too many careers have been made from supporting it.

Now I'm going to wait and see who tries to argue that 79 scientists out of 3,146 is "97%". Or the nonsenes that Cook did to "support the cause" which was backed by Nature magazine.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update2

Here is just one of the scientists that AGW alarmists like to misrepresent.

Quote:
Willie Soon
Ph.D. Rocket Science
Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

Dr. Soon, your paper 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

s this an accurate representation of your paper?

Soon: "I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

"For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes."

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

I hope my scientific views and conclusions are clear to anyone that will spend time reading our papers. Cook et al. (2013) is not the study to read if you want to find out about what we say and conclude in our own scientific works."


Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Soon: "No extra comment on Cook et al. (2013) is necessary as it is not a paper aiming to help anyone understand the science."

Quote:
Alan Carlin
Ph.D. Economics, MIT
Senior Operations Research Analyst, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Retired)

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear. The abstract includes the following statement:

"The economic benefits of reducing CO2 emissions may be about two orders of magnitude less than those estimated by most economists because the climate sensitivity factor (CSF) is much lower than assumed by the United Nations because feedback is negative rather than positive and the effects of CO2 emissions reductions on atmospheric CO2 appear to be short rather than long lasting."

In brief, I argue that human activity may increase temperatures over what they would otherwise have been without human activity, but the effect is so minor that it is not worth serious consideration.

I would classify my paper in Cook et al's category (7): Explicit rejection with quantification. My paper shows that two critical components of the AGW hypothesis are not supported by the available observational evidence and that a related hypothesis is highly doubtful. I hence conclude that the AGW hypothesis as a whole is not supported and state that hypotheses not supported by evidence should be rejected.

With regard to quantification, I state that the economic benefits of reducing CO2 are about two orders of magnitude less than assumed by pro-AGW economists using the IPCC AR4 report because of problems with the IPCC science. Surely 1/100th of the IPCC AGW estimate is less than half of the very minor global warming that has occurred since humans became a significant source of CO2."


Any further comment on the Cook et al. (2013) paper?

Carlin: "If Cook et al's paper is so far off in its classification of my paper, the next question is whether their treatment of my paper is an outlier in the quality of their analysis or is representative. Since I understand that five other skeptic paper authors whose papers were classified by Cook et al. (Idso, Morner, Scaffeta, Soon, and Shaviv) have similar concerns to date, the classification problems in Cook's paper may be more general. Further, in all six cases the effect of the misclassifications is to exaggerate Cook et al's conclusions rather than being apparently random errors due to sloppy analysis. Since their conclusions are at best no better than their data, it appears likely that Cook et al's conclusions are exaggerated as well as being unsupported by the evidence that they offer. I have not done an analysis of each of the papers Cook et al. classified, but I believe that there is sufficient evidence concerning misclassification that Cook et al's paper should be withdrawn by the authors and the data reanalyzed, preferably by less-biased reviewers.

One possible explanation for this apparent pattern of misclassification into "more favorable" classifications in terms of supporting the AGW hypothesis is that Cook et al. may have reverse engineered their paper. That is, perhaps the authors started by deciding the "answer" they wanted (97 percent) based on previous alarmist studies on the subject. They certainly had strong motivation to come up with this "answer" given the huge propaganda investment by alarmists in this particular number. So in the end they may have concluded that they needed to reclassify enough skeptic papers into "more favorable" classifications in order to reach this possibly predetermined "answer" and hoped that these misclassifications would go unnoticed by the world's press and governmental officials trumpeting their scientifically irrelevant conclusions. Obviously, whether this was actually done is known only to the authors, but I offer it as a hypothesis that might explain the apparently widespread and one-directional misclassifications of skeptic papers. Mere sloppy analysis should have resulted in a random pattern of misclassifications."


And there are plenty more but it's pretty obvious that some shady stuff and data manipulation was going on. And that's the "big science", Nature and the rest of the Climate world are trumpeting around to say "see everyone agree's with us, we must be right and you dirty deniers are just crazy people".

That is how low AGW supporters, including the Scientists, are willing to go to get support for their pet theory.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9658
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-25 06:48:24  
Quote:
I would even take a step further and say I do believe that the climate changes. But to attribute humans and their release of CO2 as both being the main culprit is not something I endorse.

This has been the belief of most scientists. We all know that the climate changes naturally, I've posted lots of information related to that. The question is are humans causing a negative impact, and to what degree? Most scientists are of the opinion that we might be and that we need lots of data to find out. The alarmists are of the opinion that they can't wait to find out and we need to just trust them, give them our money and do whatever they tell us to.

There has been a huge collaborated effort amongst the Global Warming crowd to control the message and stifle any dissent. We have evidence of this in leaked emails amongst high level members of that community to each other regarding deleting data and misleading people. Lots of people want to look the other way because of how damning it is.

Hell the above poster citing Nature magazine as fully credibly in the same post criticizing media for over-hyping the scare is laughable. Nature magazine is the one responsible for over-hyping the scare and then suppressing dissenting submissions. It go to the point that those who disagreed had to put their papers and data out on the Internet without going through the peer process because Nature and friends refused to even review any material that the editors didn't already agree with. It was such a perversion of the process that "peer review" has lost all meaning now.
 Leviathan.Chaosx
Offline
サーバ: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
user: ChaosX128
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2015-08-25 06:56:01  
So I just skimmed over the first 20 pages of this thread... All that needed to be said is already there. So I'm gonna quietly step out now.
[+]
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9658
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-25 07:07:39  
And just to point out how much "accepted science" is ***.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/06/cooks-97-consensus-study-game-plan.html

Quote:
In March of 2012, the climate alarmist website Skeptical Science had their forums "hacked" and the contents posted online. In a forum thread titled, "Introduction to TCP" (2012-01-19) John Cook layed out the game plan for the 97% consensus study, Cook et al. (2013) 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature',

It's pretty damning. He drew up the conclusion as the goal, then organized his team to do the "review" and create the paper. Basically conclusion before data analysis, which is the exact opposite of the Scientific Method. And yet all the big "peer reviewed" publications cheered with joy and fully endorsed this as "science".

But hey we should just "trust them" because they are obviously unbiased and not at all pursuing an agenda.

And here is a paper, reviewed by an Energy Science publication, that does statistical analysis on the results and methodology of the Cook paper. Result is that Cook's paper, which again is one of the central claims by the AGW supporters here, was nothing but propaganda due to extremely poor analysis technique coupled with prejudiced reviewers and predetermined results.
 Valefor.Sehachan
Guide Maker
Offline
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Seha
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-08-25 07:34:26  
Who cares that natural disasters have a stronger impact than us, if we could manipulate those too we *** would. Controlled volcano releases, solar storms deflection or what have you.
The matter is about our contribution which still matters cause it's not fine to do something negative just cause hey at least we're not volcanoes!

Climate is changing and that is not questioned from anyone, if you don't believe it either you were born last week or you need to go out more. Or just watch the weather news.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas and this is not in question either. At all.

Climate change has dangerous consequences for a large portion of the planet's species including ours. Tu say otherwise would be pure dumbassery, this is how extinctions happen, organisms fail to adapt to the new conditions and start disappearing. And mind you it doesn't have to be an hell flames kind of scenario but even few degrees can make a difference on many vegetal and animal species.

Now, you want to debate something there's the amount of CO2 we produce: how much can we pump per year worldwide before it becomes too much?

And finally for a personal consideration: we have all to gain from stop using oil(but gradually cause world economics are complex). New ideas exist they just wait to be invested in.
[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Offline
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
user: zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2015-08-25 08:14:00  
"Quote" link: Top right hand side of people's posts. The forth of six, between "PM" and "Reply".

Jesus! Please use it correctly so we can at least reference whose original post you're responding to before you butcher it. Is it too much to ask?

If you're responding to snippits of posts, copy/pasta {quote="Asura.Saevel" pid=2951788} (insert brackets) at the beginning rather than {quote} to reference who you're responding to for each blurb.
 Asura.Saevel
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 9658
By Asura.Saevel 2015-08-25 08:58:29  
Quote:
Climate change has dangerous consequences for a large portion of the planet's species including ours. T

Now link CO2 to your assertions because while you listed a few basic ideas, you phrased them such a way as to make the reader imply they are connected, they aren't. CO2 is a trace gas, it contributes somewhere between 3 to 8% of the atmosphere's greenhouse effect and works on a logarithmic scale. Virtually all it's contribution happens in the first 180~200 ppm, any contribution past that is so minuscule as to be within the error bar. That is known hard science, the result of well understood physics.

The new part is AGW alarmists stating that this new, and unproven, mechanic makes CO2 have a more significant role. The mechanic is that additional CO2 forces more H2O into the atmosphere, H2O is the primary green house gas and responsible for 90% of the effect. Nowhere has this mechanic been demonstrated or proven and yet it's importance is such that it's sacrilege to question it.

Quote:
New ideas exist they just wait to be invested in.

The key technologies existed before 1970, the same folks pushing AGW also decided that reduction of energy use was the only answer. If your referring to Solar / Wind, then they are so little as to not even be a serious contender. If you were to put solar panels on every viable spot on the planet, then you would have enough power for the USA in 2006. They are at least an order of magnitude, possibly even two, too small to be a viable contender and they do absolutely nothing to reduce the overall demand for hydrocarbons. Sure you can get a lower electric bill at some homes, but the aggregate effect is negligible as the base load power plants still need to run and those are coal. Swing and peak are where Gas, Oil and Hydro come into play and those need to be reliable to be effective. When operators push that button they need to know that power will be supplied, otherwise you get brown outs.

At best Solar / Wind can be used to reduce energy usage at domestic level, throw them on homes and they act as demand reduction. Using them to power the grid is beyond stupid unless your living near a desert, and even then it's questionable as the land usage and resources required to build could be more efficiently spent. That leaves nuclear and the AGW alarmists won't have any of that.


Which comes to my final point. None of this has anything to do with the environment. The folks running the show don't give a damn about whether polar bears die or the worlds temperature. If they honestly believed what they preached then they wouldn't be taking private jets to climate conferences, riding around in limo's, running all night light displays at their home and other horribly energy wasteful practices. They only care about power and control and the best way to get that is to scare people into giving it to you. World societies run on energy, it's their lifeblood. Every time a new energy source was discovered or mastered our society changed for the better and we advanced. By gaining complete control over a societies energy supply they could then in turn have complete control over that society. This is why every liberal "Climate Change" idea revolves around putting the control of the energy industry into their hands. It's why they lie about and distort anything that supports them while maligning anything that opposes them.

The rest of you true believers are merely useful idiots.

Like Chaos I've said everything that needs saying. The data and information is available for anyone believer to do the same thing I did and leave the flock. I'm leaving now, good day.
[+]
Administrator
Offline
サーバ: Hyperion
Game: FFXIV
user: Rooks
Posts: 701
By Drama Torama 2015-08-25 09:05:56  
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
If you're responding to snippits of posts, copy/pasta {quote="Asura.Saevel" pid=2951788} (insert brackets) at the beginning rather than {quote} to reference who you're responding to for each blurb.

It's actually even easier than that. Highlight the text you want to quote, hit Quote, and it does the magic for you.
[+]
 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-08-25 09:08:12  
Drama Torama said: »
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »
If you're responding to snippits of posts, copy/pasta {quote="Asura.Saevel" pid=2951788} (insert brackets) at the beginning rather than {quote} to reference who you're responding to for each blurb.

It's actually even easier than that. Highlight the text you want to quote, hit Quote, and it does the magic for you.

That doesn't seem to work well for multi-layer stuff.

EX:

Drama Torama said: »
Caitsith.Zahrah said: »If you're responding to snippits of posts, copy/pasta {quote="Asura.Saevel" pid=2951788} (insert brackets) at the beginning rather than {quote} to reference who you're responding to for each blurb.
It's actually even easier than that. Highlight the text you want to quote, hit Quote, and it does the magic for you.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42635
By Jetackuu 2015-08-25 09:08:33  
Asura.Saevel said: »
I'm leaving now, good day.
About time.

In other news: there's new breakthroughs in battery tech again, apparently going with solid electrolytes, a rather interesting read.
Administrator
Offline
サーバ: Hyperion
Game: FFXIV
user: Rooks
Posts: 701
By Drama Torama 2015-08-25 09:10:53  
Odin.Jassik said: »
That doesn't seem to work well for multi-layer stuff.

Good, people don't need giant stupid quote trains

(I'll put it on the list of things to fix)
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42635
By Jetackuu 2015-08-25 09:13:56  
Drama Torama said: »
Odin.Jassik said: »
That doesn't seem to work well for multi-layer stuff.

Good, people don't need giant stupid quote trains

(I'll put it on the list of things to fix)
Feeling a tad malcontent Rooks?
Offline
Posts: 42635
By Jetackuu 2015-08-25 09:18:21  
Speaking of limos:

 Odin.Jassik
VIP
Offline
サーバ: Odin
Game: FFXI
user: Jassik
Posts: 9534
By Odin.Jassik 2015-08-25 09:27:18  
Jetackuu said: »
Speaking of limos:


Somehow I imagined Bill Nye would ride around town on one of these.

[+]
 Caitsith.Zahrah
Offline
サーバ: Caitsith
Game: FFXI
user: zahrah
By Caitsith.Zahrah 2015-08-25 10:00:08  
Any method is fine. Saevel should simply apply at least one of them is the point. Less convoluted backread.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 35422
By fonewear 2015-08-25 10:17:09  
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
So I just skimmed over the first 20 pages of this thread... All that needed to be said is already there. So I'm gonna quietly step out now.

I read the last 2 posts the gist of it is.

Science good.

Your opinion bad.

Can I go now ?
[+]
 Sylph.Jeanpaul
MSPaint Champion
Offline
サーバ: Sylph
Game: FFXI
user: JeanPaul
Posts: 2623
By Sylph.Jeanpaul 2015-08-25 13:39:50  
Asura.Saevel said: »
Quote:
1) Human activity causing more than normal amounts of carbon dioxide and other notable gases to enter the atmosphere

Define "normal"?

1900's normal
1500's normal
-2000 BC normal
-60,000 BC normal
-400,000 BC normal
-65,000,000 BC normal?

Each period had a different amount of CO2 entering the atmosphere, some of those phases had CO2 about 4~5x the amount it is now. There were no humans around to cause this.

Quote:
2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 levels causing irregular atmospheric conditions (warming), altering weather patterns (climate change)

*** prove this. So far there has been zero increase in global temperatures for over the past eighteen years. Not a single climate model predicts this, every last one of them has us burning up with snow being a distant memory.

Quote:
3) The resulting damage from the changes to climates and the atmosphere

Again *** prove this. You don't get to hand waive and say "just trust me folks".

Quote:
So here's some links to Nature (a world-renowned, heavily vetted scientific journal), though unfortunately all I can pull up are abstracts. Full peer-reviewed scholarly articles regularly require a fee to access, though I doubt any of you would read through an entire article. I can dig up more, and from other sources if this doesn't satisfy anyone.

I frequently read the full articles, and actually understand what they are saying. Nature Magazine is now a joke, they are one of the entities implicated in the Climategate emails and are responsible for shutting out dissenting opinions of Climate science. There is no peer review process anymore, instead the senior editor stands approves the submission of his friends and then they approve his submissions. This was another problem revealed after the emails were released, you had a group of people agreeing before hand to approval each others submissions "for the cause". "Nature" magazine is about as reliable now as Mother Jones. It has lost a ton of credibility in the last decade after Phil Jones and his crew were outed as having colluded to control the message. Again when confronted about it the response was typically "it's for a good cause".
If you checked my links at all, you would see that I addressed those 3 points (even if I worded them poorly). I mean, the information was right there, you didn't even have to wait for me to respond, unless you checked them and wanted more. In regards to your stand on Nature, bear in mind that the studies themselves are independent from Nature, and undergo a peer-reviewing process well before Nature looks at them. Also, the articles you were scrutinizing were not the articles I posted, so feel free to share something that discredits my links, I can wait.

You're very skilled at deflection (such conviction!), I'll give you that.
[+]
 Valefor.Sehachan
Guide Maker
Offline
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Seha
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2015-08-25 15:08:52  
Jetackuu said: »
there's new breakthroughs in battery tech again
Do you mean the new graphene applications?
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2015-08-25 18:14:49  
Odin.Jassik said: »
Somehow I imagined Bill Nye would ride around town on one of these.


Velocipede? Suddenly I'm imagining a creature that's a combination of a centipede and a velociraptor. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a new movie idea to go pitch.
[+]
Offline
Posts: 42635
By Jetackuu 2015-08-25 21:11:59  
Valefor.Sehachan said: »
Jetackuu said: »
there's new breakthroughs in battery tech again
Do you mean the new graphene applications?
One of a few I was reading about this morning.
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11095
By Garuda.Chanti 2015-08-26 18:54:52  
OK, so far I have avoided this thread like the plague. Mostly 'cause I already know the arguments and who will make them.

But I HAVE to post this:

New NASA Model Maps Sea Level Rise Like Never Before (Video)
Space.com

Quote:
A new NASA model is showing just how fast sea levels are rising around the world as a result of climate change.

At a news conference today (Aug. 26), NASA officials described a new computer visualization of sea level change incorporating data collected by satellites since 1992 — it reveals that sea levels are rising quickly but unevenly across the globe. The space agency will continue to investigate the global phenomenon, and new satellite missions in the coming years will increase researchers' knowledge of the topic, officials said.

"Sea level rise is one of the most visible signatures of our changing climate, and rising seas have profound impacts on our nation, our economy and all of humanity," Michael Freilich, director of NASA's Earth Science Division at the agency's headquarters in Washington, D.C., said at the news conference. ][Climate Change Impact: NASA's 21st Century Predictions (Video)]

"By combining space-borne direct measurements of sea level with a host of other measurements from satellites and sensors in the oceans themselves, NASA scientists are not only tracking changes in ocean heights but are also determining the reasons for those changes," Freilich added.

As Earth heats up, sea levels are rising because of three main factors: the expansion of seawater as it warms, melting ice sheets in places like Greenland and Antarctica, and melting glaciers across the world. Each of these factors seems to be contributing relatively equally to sea level rise right now, and NASA is deploying tools to better understand and model all three.

NASA's data reveals that, although the picture is complex, sea levels overall are rising faster than they were 50 years ago — more quickly than expected — and that the speed will likely increase in the future, primarily because of melting ice sheets.

To study sea levels, NASA has used satellite altimetry, which measures the time a radar burst takes to hit Earth's surface and return to orbiting spacecraft such as TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason 1 and then Jason 2. The measurement is extremely precise: Freilich mentioned that such a tool mounted on a jetliner flying at 40,000 feet (12,200 meters) would be able to detect the bump caused by a dime lying flat on the ground. NASA's ICESat satellite also keeps tabs on ice-sheet height with pulses of laser light.

The model also incorporates data from GRACE, twin satellites that are very sensitive to changes in Earth's mass distribution. The distance between the two spacecraft varies as ice and water move around on the planet, Steve Nerem, who leads NASA's Sea Level Change Team at the University of Colorado, Boulder, said at the news conference — and the GRACE duo can measure those changes to within the diameter of a red blood cell. [8 Ways Global Warming Is Already Changing the World]

A follow-up to the GRACE mission is expected to launch in 2017, officials said, as is ICESat-2. Jason 3 was scheduled to launch this month by SpaceX, but it must be rescheduled because of SpaceX's recent failed resupply mission to the International Space Station. And NASA has more satellites in the pipeline for later on, such as the radar-imaging NISAR (Nasa-Isro Synthetic Aperture Radar) and SWOT (Surface Water and Ocean Topography) missions in 2020.

In 2014, NASA formed a new sea-level-change research team comprising scientists with expertise in glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, geophysics and a variety of other fields, Nerem said. "You need all these fields … to actually understand all the factors that affect future sea level rise," he noted.

In addition to doing satellite-based research, NASA scientists are venturing out by land and sea to better understand the Earth's changes. A major new effort, called Oceans Melting Greenland (OMG), will begin by mapping the seafloor near Greenland with underwater probes, to see how the huge island's contours are guiding melting. Greenland's ice sheet alone would raise sea levels globally by 20 feet (6 m) if all of it were to melt, researchers said. (Me - Greenland's ice sheets are BLACK in the summer, not white. Black absorbs heat....)

Starting in September, NASA will also perform several sweeps over Greenland, with instruments on the HU-25C Guardian Falcon plane for Operation IceBridge.

"When you look across Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, you see a whole range of climate variables," said Eric Rignot, a glaciologist based at the University of California, Irvine and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. "Looking at Alaska's glaciers tells us what Greenland will look like in a century or a few centuries. What's happening in Greenland is relevant to what's going to happen to Antarctica in the future as well. They are all connected pieces of research."

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted in 2013 that sea level would rise by 1 to 3 feet (0.3 to 1 m) by the end of the century. But the uncertainties are significant, officials said, and the actual increase could wind up being much larger. The picture NASA is developing will help predict exactly what shape those changes will take.

"Let there be no doubt: This is relevant science, and it will result in understanding that yields direct societal benefit," Freilich said. "The effects and impacts of changing sea level are being felt now, in our country and throughout the world."
necroskull Necro Bump Detected! [1730 days between previous and next post]
 Valefor.Endoq
Offline
サーバ: Valefor
Game: FFXI
user: Endoq
Posts: 6906
By Valefor.Endoq 2020-05-22 00:11:06  
With recent events, we can clearly see that humans are effecting the weather, but has this actually made change to the climate?
 Asura.Eiryl
Offline
サーバ: Asura
Game: FFXI
user: Eiryl
By Asura.Eiryl 2020-05-22 02:11:36  
Bump to see if it gets onto the main page or if it's hidden for whatever reason.
[+]
 Garuda.Chanti
Offline
サーバ: Garuda
Game: FFXI
user: Chanti
Posts: 11095
By Garuda.Chanti 2020-05-22 09:33:50  
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Odin.Zicdeh said: »
Is it Accelerated by Mankind to a significant degree? Data Insufficient.
This the one we need to get definitive data on then.
We have the data. It is mostly caused by us.
[+]
By volkom 2020-05-22 11:35:35  
this made me back read a little

Quote:
we have all to gain from stop using oil(but gradually cause world economics are complex). New ideas exist they just wait to be invested in.
unfortunately we're very dependent on oil/petroleum ~ not just to fuel vehicles but also making products like makeup, plastics, toothpaste ~ examples

on the global warming thing ~ is there any study that goes in depth of how climate change is impacted by solar activity, natural disasters (like volcano eruptions) or shifts in earth's magnetic fields vs human activity?
[+]
 Bahamut.Ravael
Offline
サーバ: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
user: Ravael
Posts: 13617
By Bahamut.Ravael 2020-05-22 14:50:31  
Are there studies? Yes. Are they conclusive? No, and they never will be. I tried explaining this years ago, but the threshold for statistical significance cannot be met because the data is primarily observational and not experimental. The best we can do is extrapolate known principles onto a large scale with buttloads of potential confounding variables that we can’t possibly account for and then make an educated guess.
[+]
First Page 2 3 ... 45 46
Log in to post.