August 05, 2022
More Climate Debate
Timothy Birdnow
In a post on Facebook about the shortening of the day, Meteorologist James Covington and a polite liberal climate alarmist (well, as polite as they are capable of being) named Mike Reynolds got into a disagreement.
James says:
They don't know why, but they're sure it must be "climate change". lol
Mike replies:
It mentions Chandler Wobble 3 times which is one of the top contending hypotheses. And it's intuitive that the amount of weight on the top of a spinning top would affect its wobble, i.e. glaciers.
But there are many other theories and scientists don't declare certainty until they have enough data on a correlation to reach a one in 3 million chance of it being a statistical fluke.
James responds:
I am one of those scientists. Meteorologist who's been studying natural climate cycles for decades. 🙂
Last 3 years both poles have slowly gained ice. A majority of high elevation glaciers are now thickening, as well.... those that aren't are largely due to changes in prevailing winds. Sea level is changing by a couple millimeters per year and leveling off. I don't claim to know exactly what's going on.... but I'm about 99% sure it has nothing to do with miniscule changes in the ambient air temperatures. 🙂
If I had to formulate a cogent hypothesis, I'd say deep quakes in the southwest Pacific region, and corresponding rebound, are slowly changing the shape of the lithosphere.
Mike retorts:
The average sea level rise over the 20th century was 1.4 mm/year. [1] The average rate has been 2.62 ± 0.69 mm/year during 1993–2008, 4.10 ± 0.41 mm/year during 2006–2021 [2], and 5 mm/year during 2014-2019. [3]
1. jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/the-science-of-earths-rising-seas/
2. climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-level
3. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569121001587
Do you have a reference for a glacial mass increase over the past 3 years? I cannot find anything about it.
James rebuts:
By the same sources you mean the same satellites? So NASA and JPL who operate the satellites are co-conspirators
Your refer is 14 years out of date.The three links are all funded by the same agencies and
the data is all from the same sources.... I would note that it's stated
in the IPCC's charter to look for human causes, they ignore natural
cycles. Here's a screenshot from a published (independant) paper. The
natural cycle is rather obvious in the bottom graph. In the top, you
see the upward trend started a LONG time ago.
Overall glacial mass may be pretty close to net zero, I'm simply saying gains in a number of areas counter losses in others. Media only shows the losses. As for the Arctic, I have maps from ship reports going back to 1899, there is nothing unusual going on up there... except that neither passage is open yet this summer.
Mike retorts:
James J. Covington By the same sources you mean the same satellites? So NASA and JPL who operate the satellites are co-conspirators with the UN who have cooked the books and you can't trust satellite data?
Your refer is 14 years out of date.
It would also have to be a conspiracy of global tidal gauges around the world which confirm the satellite data.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/21/which-are-more-accurate-in-measuring-sea-level-rise-tide-gauges-or-satellites/
Tim adds:
A fine discussion Mike Reynolds and James J. Covington!
I tend not to trust NASA and NOAA data as both are government agencies dependent on alarmism to obtain funding. And governments love climate change theory because it allows them to tax more, regulate more, and wield power. Also, both agencies have been caught tampering with historical data to make the current warming trend seem larger.https://www.climatesciencenews.com/2020-07-12-nasa-giss-alters-us-southeast-data.html
Mike, I agree with James here; you are relying on the same fundamental source ultimately.
And how was sea level rise determined? The sea doesn't rise the same in the same place everywhere. It's an average, and one must ask how it is taken? Grace satellite data? Tide gauges? Tide gauges are often obsolete when changes to the tidal pool occur from other human activity.Judith Curry argues that the sea level rise does not comport with carbon dioxide nor with warming trends. https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/14/the-blame-game/
BTW, did it occur to anyone that this increase in the rate of Earth's rotation could also tie in with the claimed increase in the rate of sea level rise? (I still have my doubts on whether the rate actually increased or this is an artifact of NASA data collection techniques.)
Here is a list of papers that dispute the claims of increased sea level rise. https://notrickszone.com/?s=tide+gauges
At any rate, most studies show sea levels were much higher in the past few thousand years than now. See Hammond et al (2021) titled: "GPS Imaging of Global Vertical Land Motion for Studies of Sea Level Rise"
Mike, this report of a NASA study from five years ago concluded Antarctica had gained ice mass. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
Naturally we won't have one from under three years as these kinds of studies require a lot of effort and time. And sea ice is up slightly as of this year. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
I would also add that Tony Heller says Arctic Ice has reached an 18 year high back in January. https://iowaclimate.org/2022/01/05/climate-history-researcher-arctic-ice-sees-18-year-high-for-january-3rdalso-more-ice-than-100-years-ago/
Ice is definitely growing in places where it is supposed to be dissipating.
Mike since you put satellite data in such high regard then would you agree with the UAH data - gleened from satellites - that shows very little planetary warming, or would you continue to hold with the surface station data promoted by NASA https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/ I would also ask what metric was used to measure ice? Icesat used lasers to actually measure the ice (and found ice gains) while GRACE tried to measure gravitational anomalies. (and found ice loss). Both satellite programs are over, I might add. GRACE was decomissioned in 2017, and Icesat in 2010. Satellite data often depends on how it is gathered and how it is interpreted.
Tidal gauges are of limited value Mike. Often they are situated in areas disturbed by human activity, such as tidal pools near rivers which have been altered by things like levees, which increase the amount of water draining into the pool.Flood controls have a detrimenal effect on many of the areas where tidal gauges are employed. I would take that data with a grain of salt. Especially since it comes from NASA, whose funding is prediated on promoting the theory.
Oh Mike, Icesat II, which is in operation now, confirms ice gains in East Antarctica as of this year. Enough to balance out losses in WAIS and the Antarctic Peninsula. Ihttps://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2021/04/14/nasa-study-excess-of-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-over-mass-losses-during-1992-to-2008-eliminated-by-increasing-dynamic-losses-to-2016/
"However, the new study shows that beginning in 2009, the dynamic losses from the outlet glaciers in the WA1 part of WA strongly increased by 119 Gt a-1 (from 95 to 214 Gt a-1), which was further enhanced by an accumulation mass decrease of 39 Gt a-1 in the inland WA2 part of WA. Nevertheless, that total decrease of 158 Gt a-1 was not enough to bring the whole ice sheet into balance (input equals output), because there was a concurrent accumulation mass increase of 107 Gt a-1 in EA for three years (2009-11)."
In a post on Facebook about the shortening of the day, Meteorologist James Covington and a polite liberal climate alarmist (well, as polite as they are capable of being) named Mike Reynolds got into a disagreement.
James says:
They don't know why, but they're sure it must be "climate change". lol
Mike replies:
It mentions Chandler Wobble 3 times which is one of the top contending hypotheses. And it's intuitive that the amount of weight on the top of a spinning top would affect its wobble, i.e. glaciers.
But there are many other theories and scientists don't declare certainty until they have enough data on a correlation to reach a one in 3 million chance of it being a statistical fluke.
James responds:
I am one of those scientists. Meteorologist who's been studying natural climate cycles for decades. 🙂
Last 3 years both poles have slowly gained ice. A majority of high elevation glaciers are now thickening, as well.... those that aren't are largely due to changes in prevailing winds. Sea level is changing by a couple millimeters per year and leveling off. I don't claim to know exactly what's going on.... but I'm about 99% sure it has nothing to do with miniscule changes in the ambient air temperatures. 🙂
If I had to formulate a cogent hypothesis, I'd say deep quakes in the southwest Pacific region, and corresponding rebound, are slowly changing the shape of the lithosphere.
Mike retorts:
The average sea level rise over the 20th century was 1.4 mm/year. [1] The average rate has been 2.62 ± 0.69 mm/year during 1993–2008, 4.10 ± 0.41 mm/year during 2006–2021 [2], and 5 mm/year during 2014-2019. [3]
1. jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/the-science-of-earths-rising-seas/
2. climate.copernicus.eu/climate-indicators/sea-level
3. sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0964569121001587
Do you have a reference for a glacial mass increase over the past 3 years? I cannot find anything about it.
James rebuts:
By the same sources you mean the same satellites? So NASA and JPL who operate the satellites are co-conspirators
Your refer is 14 years out of date.
Overall glacial mass may be pretty close to net zero, I'm simply saying gains in a number of areas counter losses in others. Media only shows the losses. As for the Arctic, I have maps from ship reports going back to 1899, there is nothing unusual going on up there... except that neither passage is open yet this summer.
Mike retorts:
James J. Covington By the same sources you mean the same satellites? So NASA and JPL who operate the satellites are co-conspirators with the UN who have cooked the books and you can't trust satellite data?
Your refer is 14 years out of date.
It would also have to be a conspiracy of global tidal gauges around the world which confirm the satellite data.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/21/which-are-more-accurate-in-measuring-sea-level-rise-tide-gauges-or-satellites/
Tim adds:
A fine discussion Mike Reynolds and James J. Covington!
I tend not to trust NASA and NOAA data as both are government agencies dependent on alarmism to obtain funding. And governments love climate change theory because it allows them to tax more, regulate more, and wield power. Also, both agencies have been caught tampering with historical data to make the current warming trend seem larger.https://www.climatesciencenews.com/2020-07-12-nasa-giss-alters-us-southeast-data.html
Mike, I agree with James here; you are relying on the same fundamental source ultimately.
And how was sea level rise determined? The sea doesn't rise the same in the same place everywhere. It's an average, and one must ask how it is taken? Grace satellite data? Tide gauges? Tide gauges are often obsolete when changes to the tidal pool occur from other human activity.Judith Curry argues that the sea level rise does not comport with carbon dioxide nor with warming trends. https://judithcurry.com/2017/08/14/the-blame-game/
BTW, did it occur to anyone that this increase in the rate of Earth's rotation could also tie in with the claimed increase in the rate of sea level rise? (I still have my doubts on whether the rate actually increased or this is an artifact of NASA data collection techniques.)
Here is a list of papers that dispute the claims of increased sea level rise. https://notrickszone.com/?s=tide+gauges
At any rate, most studies show sea levels were much higher in the past few thousand years than now. See Hammond et al (2021) titled: "GPS Imaging of Global Vertical Land Motion for Studies of Sea Level Rise"
Mike, this report of a NASA study from five years ago concluded Antarctica had gained ice mass. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
Naturally we won't have one from under three years as these kinds of studies require a lot of effort and time. And sea ice is up slightly as of this year. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/understanding-climate-antarctic-sea-ice-extent
I would also add that Tony Heller says Arctic Ice has reached an 18 year high back in January. https://iowaclimate.org/2022/01/05/climate-history-researcher-arctic-ice-sees-18-year-high-for-january-3rdalso-more-ice-than-100-years-ago/
Ice is definitely growing in places where it is supposed to be dissipating.
Mike since you put satellite data in such high regard then would you agree with the UAH data - gleened from satellites - that shows very little planetary warming, or would you continue to hold with the surface station data promoted by NASA https://www.climatedepot.com/2016/01/12/satellites-no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-8-months/ I would also ask what metric was used to measure ice? Icesat used lasers to actually measure the ice (and found ice gains) while GRACE tried to measure gravitational anomalies. (and found ice loss). Both satellite programs are over, I might add. GRACE was decomissioned in 2017, and Icesat in 2010. Satellite data often depends on how it is gathered and how it is interpreted.
Tidal gauges are of limited value Mike. Often they are situated in areas disturbed by human activity, such as tidal pools near rivers which have been altered by things like levees, which increase the amount of water draining into the pool.Flood controls have a detrimenal effect on many of the areas where tidal gauges are employed. I would take that data with a grain of salt. Especially since it comes from NASA, whose funding is prediated on promoting the theory.
Oh Mike, Icesat II, which is in operation now, confirms ice gains in East Antarctica as of this year. Enough to balance out losses in WAIS and the Antarctic Peninsula. Ihttps://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2021/04/14/nasa-study-excess-of-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-over-mass-losses-during-1992-to-2008-eliminated-by-increasing-dynamic-losses-to-2016/
"However, the new study shows that beginning in 2009, the dynamic losses from the outlet glaciers in the WA1 part of WA strongly increased by 119 Gt a-1 (from 95 to 214 Gt a-1), which was further enhanced by an accumulation mass decrease of 39 Gt a-1 in the inland WA2 part of WA. Nevertheless, that total decrease of 158 Gt a-1 was not enough to bring the whole ice sheet into balance (input equals output), because there was a concurrent accumulation mass increase of 107 Gt a-1 in EA for three years (2009-11)."
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
11:40 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 1197 words, total size 9 kb.
1
Interestingly, none of the "possibilities†mention the Moon. That big old night time thing that everyone loves to sing about and whose day has bee so altered by tidal forces of the Earth that it always presents one face to the Earth.
Has no one ever thought that it might be doing, on a smaller scale, the same thing to Earth that Earth did to it? Yes, actually, many scientists have. It’s well known that the Moon’s tidal forces are slowing Earth’s rotation such that at some point in the future Earth will present one face toward the Moon. The reasons for that are very well known.
Why Earth’s rotation is momentarily speeding up is confusing, until you admit that tidal forces are erratic because Earth is not a homogenous billiard ball. It is lumpy and its mass is not distributed evenly. It’s also affected by tidal forces from the Sun and from coronal mass ejections. Note "mass†interacting with Earth’s magnetic field.
Today’s scientists were taught Critical Race Theory instead of geology and mathematics.
Has no one ever thought that it might be doing, on a smaller scale, the same thing to Earth that Earth did to it? Yes, actually, many scientists have. It’s well known that the Moon’s tidal forces are slowing Earth’s rotation such that at some point in the future Earth will present one face toward the Moon. The reasons for that are very well known.
Why Earth’s rotation is momentarily speeding up is confusing, until you admit that tidal forces are erratic because Earth is not a homogenous billiard ball. It is lumpy and its mass is not distributed evenly. It’s also affected by tidal forces from the Sun and from coronal mass ejections. Note "mass†interacting with Earth’s magnetic field.
Today’s scientists were taught Critical Race Theory instead of geology and mathematics.
Posted by: Bill H at August 07, 2022 08:31 AM (Q7br2)
2
Good points there Bill!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at August 07, 2022 10:04 AM (BDYwC)
3
Kanpur Matka! Day chart Matka ! Kanpur Satta Chart ! kanpur Matka Result ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Dubai Matka Result ! Dubai Satta Matka ! Dubai Satta matka ! Dubai Matka Chart ! Kanpur Panel Chart ! Kanpur Bazar satta Matka ! Birbal matka ! Birbal satta Matka ! Taj Morning matka ! Bombay Morning Matka ! Kalyan Matka ! Kalyan Matka Result ! Kanpur satta Matka ! Kanpur Satta Result ! Gulam day Matka ! Gokul day Satta Matka ! Satta Matka ! CHARMINAR SATTA ! Kanpur matka Result Today Fixx Result !
Posted by: Kanpur Matka at September 20, 2022 04:49 AM (MbKbv)
Posted by: Fake Watches at June 19, 2023 09:39 PM (0b23z)
5
a polite liberal climate alarmist (well, as polite as they are capable of being) named Mike Reynolds got into a disagreement.
Posted by: Fake Watches at June 22, 2023 07:43 PM (0b23z)
30kb generated in CPU 0.0138, elapsed 0.3663 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3577 seconds, 163 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3577 seconds, 163 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
