Which reminds me TNP has always held himself up as as sceptic rather than the died in the wool denier he really is. His post, like so many before reinforces his image as a determined denier with nothing but his usual range of insults to support his position.
I asked for evidence to back up your claim that average sea level isn't rising. All NASA's image does is show that sea level changes are not simple. FWIW NASA has the following to say about average sea levels.
"During the 20th century, sea level has risen by an average of 1.7 millimeters (about 1/16 of an inch) per year. Since 1993, NASA satellites have observed an average sea level rise of 3.27 millimeters (about 1/8 of an inch) per year."
As my A-Level mathematics teacher said: you can prove *anything* with a diagram, what matters are the numbers, so where are they? Graphs, diagrams, and maps without scales and units are meaningless.
Didn't seem to be a problem here (section 'Ice Core Data'):
formatting link
They follow EACH OTHER, because there is a positive feedback mechanism: CO2+ -> Temp+ -> CO2+ -> Temp+ and so on.
Why are you linking to a Chinese government site to view information about a NASA/CNES mission?
formatting link
"The Ocean Surface Topography Mission (OSTM)/Jason-2 is an international satellite mission that will extend into the next decade the continuous climate record of sea surface height measurements begun in 1992 by the joint NASA/Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) Topex/Poseidon mission and continued in 2001 by the NASA/CNES Jason-1 mission. This multi-decadal record has already helped scientists study global sea level rise and better understand how ocean circulation and climate change are related."
...
"Sea level rise is one of the most important consequences and indicators of global climate change. From Topex/Poseidon and Jason-1 we know mean sea level has risen by about three millimeters (0.12 inches) a year since 1993. This is about twice the estimates from tide gauges for the previous century, indicating a possible recent acceleration. OSTM/Jason-2 will further monitor this trend and allow us to better understand year-to-year variations.
The speedup of ice melting in Greenland and Antarctica is a wild card in predicting future sea level rise. Measurements from Jason-1 and OSTM/Jason-2, coupled with information from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace) mission, will provide crucial information on the relative contributions of glacier melting and ocean heating to sea level change."
You still haven't answered any of the questions correctly either ...
That is not at all apparent in the data available. If it were true why did the temperature drop before the CO2 dropped on previous cycles? What is the negative feedback that broke the cycle?
There are different hystereses around the feed back loop, and other side effects.
First, some background science ...
CO2, along with other gases such as methane and water vapour, is a so-called greenhouse gas. That is, these gases behave rather like the glass in a greenhouse - they allow direct sunlight through to hit the land or ocean beneath and heat it up; some of this increase in temperature is then radiated off as heat, but these gases are impervious to radiation at this lower frequency and reabsorb it, rather than allow it to escape out into space, hence the planet is warmed. Eventually the planet is warmed to the point that enough of the increased re-radiation eventually does find its way into space, and a new equilibrium is attained. This process of radiation, absorbtion, re-radiation, re-absorbtion is happening all the time, and is entirely natural of itself, but the crucial point is that if there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, equilibrium will be attained at a higher temperature than if there are less.
Increasing temperatures work to reduce the amount of CO2 held in vegetation on land. Rainfall decreases in many areas, stressing forests and causing them to die back and release the carbon stored in the tissue of the plants as CO2, forest fires cause catastrophic change, marginal land turns to desert, etc. Hence, on average over the globe, rising land temperatures mean less CO2 sequestered in the terrestrial biosphere.
Rising ocean temperatures similarly act to reduce the CO2 held in the oceans, but the mechanism is different, simple chemistry. Cold oceans can absorb more CO2 than warm ones.
So when the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the atmosphere warms relatively quickly, the land overall a little less quickly, and the ocean less quickly still. Thus naturally the greater part of CO2 increase tends to follow increasing temperature.
There is also another reason. The positive feedback loop described above is not the only mechanism at work. There are other amplification factors, I shall describe three: one atmospheric, one terrestrial, one oceanic.
In the atmosphere, rising temperatures mean that more water vapour is absorbed into the atmosphere from the oceans, thus increasing the greenhouse effect.
On land rising temperatures melt tundra near the poles releasing methane in sufficient quantities that currently bubbles of it can be collected in a container such as a jar and lit. This methane too increases the greenhouse effect.
In the oceans, rising temperatures may lead to a sudden (comparatively speaking) release of methane currently held in hydrate form on the ocean floor. This methane too increases the greenhouse effect, potentially suddenly and dramatically.
These amplification mechanisms also tend to ensure that temperatures increase before CO2.
Thus, when Nature is left to itself, temperature increase tends to lead CO2 increase. However, we are adding additional CO2 into the atmosphere that wouldn't normally be there, so we are kick-starting the feedback loop from the side opposite to that normally employed by Nature.
The temperature has to drop before the mechanisms described above can begin to work in reverse and reabsorb the CO2 and methane previously released.
None as such, the naturally occurring ice-age cycles are controlled by the amount of radiation hitting Earth from the sun, and this is in turn controlled by orbital periodicities first worked out by Milankovitch:
All of the above merely proves that you haven't a clue about the science. See my other reply.
The predictions are poor mainly because it is very hard to predict natural systems.
Geology is a much older science than climate science, yet they are only now getting to the point where they can, sort of, predict earthquakes and volcanic eruptions - by sort of, I mean that they can look at various key factors and say that an eruption is likely soon, but they can't predict the actual time of it; and they can sometimes get a sense of when an earthquake is about to happen, and give a warning, but AIUI often they have little or no foreknowledge of one at all.
What chance then for climate science, which is a much younger science? Also, it is more inter-discipline, and the wide ranges of knowledge required brings its own difficulties.
I trust you are not one of those unfortunate individuals who only have the Thames barrage to keep you from regular submersion. The SE of England is sinking anyway and probably at a greater rate than average sea level is currently rising. The Thames barrage will be at risk from about 2030 IIRC.
And where, pray, do you expect any sinking land mass to go that will not directly lead to rising sea level? Sea level rises if you drop land into it. It also rises as the oceans warm and land based ice melts.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.