unbeliever Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ If the sea level is rising, the earth is both getting warmer and ice melting, overall. http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ Sea levels can also rise due to thermal expansion without corresponding ice melt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 Sea levels can also rise due to thermal expansion without corresponding ice melt. There would be melting, but other factors could increase it too. Increased temperatures means increased precipitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 But the amount of water neither grows nor diminishes, no matter that its format can be either solid (ice)/liquid/gaseous (air vapour). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MintPlumbing Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 There would be melting, but other factors could increase it too. Increased temperatures means increased precipitation. Which in 2010 actually lowered sea levels giving the skeptics something to latch onto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted July 22, 2015 Share Posted July 22, 2015 But the amount of water neither grows nor diminishes, no matter that its format can be either solid (ice)/liquid/gaseous (air vapour). The density and volume of the water does change though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Which in 2010 actually lowered sea levels giving the skeptics something to latch onto. Because if the sceptics use data it's "latching onto" whereas if the warmists use data (or just make it up) then that's obviously fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Which in 2010 actually lowered sea levels giving the skeptics something to latch onto. That is the reason that the science is not 100%, because they did not predict that sea level fall. But the sea level rise has been constant if you take a longer period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbeliever Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 That is the reason that the science is not 100%, because they did not predict that sea level fall. But the sea level rise has been constant if you take a longer period. Science is never 100%. It's not supposed to be. Mathematical confidence levels from experimental statistics can never hit 100% and even the highest standard calls for 99.99994% confidence. However in my view the confidence level used in climatology is too low. It's hard to get a figure out of them because when people ask they quote the confidence level for AGW which is around 90-95%. That's enough for me to assume AGW is correct, but doesn't tell me much about CAGW. I'd be very interested to see an links anybody can find showing the mathematical confidence level for say a factor of 2 amplification of AGW by positive feedbacks. Some of the catastrophic predictions require far more than a factor of 2 amplification; but if it were a factor of 2, that would convince me that urgent action is needed. Although for me urgent action would centre around nuclear rather than renewable energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 That is the reason that the science is not 100%, because they did not predict that sea level fall. But the sea level rise has been constant if you take a longer period. That's not proof that it's anthropogenic, or that it's catastrophic. Indeed, when we look at the historical record, as if often the case The last 140,000 years Sea level varied by over 100 metres during glacial-interglacial cycles as the major ice sheets waxed and waned as a result of changes in summer solar radiation in high northern hemisphere latitudes. Paleo data from corals indicate that sea level was 4 to 6 m (or more) above present day sea levels during the last interglacial period, about 125 000 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Science is never 100%. It's not supposed to be. Er, it is. SCIO, SCIRE, SCIVI, SCITUM: Latin third-conjugation verb meaning 'to know'. Hence 'science' should be what is known, facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now