The image on the left is the
main Hawaiian Island with a red circle denoting the coastal region near the community of Captain Cook, Hawaii.
The chart on the right is a plot of satellite data of Captain Cook coastal sea surface heights, and monthly atmospheric CO2 levels, since 1992.
Clearly, per the satellite data, the hysterical IPCC prediction that human CO2 emissions would cause dangerous, accelerating sea level rise and swamp Pacific Ocean islands is totally discredited. Not only has human CO2 not unleashed catastrophic sea level rises (i.e. climate change), human emissions have not unleashed rapidly increasing, catastrophic global warming.
Regarding global sea levels, a new peer reviewed study found that both satellite and tide gauge empirical observations indicate that sea levels are driven by a natural 60-year oscillation. Essentially, sea levels will naturally rise and fall regardless of atmospheric CO2 levels.
"Over the last decade," in the words of Chambers et al. (2012), "numerous papers have commented on the appearance of decadal and longer period fluctuations in select tide gauge records... And in their own study of long tide gauge records in every ocean basin, Chambers et al. find that there is, indeed, "a significant oscillation with a period around 60-years in the majority of the tide gauges examined during the 20th century."...they rightly state that the 60-year oscillation does change "our interpretation of the trends when estimated over periods less than one-cycle of the oscillation." And, therefore, they conclude that "although several studies have suggested the recent change in trends of global sea level rise reflects an acceleration, this must be re-examined in light of a possible 60-year oscillation [italics and bold added]," in further support of which contention they note that "there have been previous periods where the rate was decelerating..."[Don P. Chambers, Mark A. Merrifield, R. Steven Nerem 2012: Geophysical Research Letters]
Conclusions:
1. Per the empirical satellite data, human CO2 emissions are not causing an accelerating sea level rise that is swamping Pacific Ocean islands, and thus causing a vast migration of climate change refugees (another hysterical IPCC prediction spread by climate liars).
2. Per scientific research, there exists a natural 60-year oscillation of sea surface heights that better explains sea height change than the alarmist CAGW hypothesis.
Additional peer-reviewed, failed-prediction and sea-level postings; more sea-level and modern temperature charts.
Notes: All of the above came from CO3 Headlines. You will want to bookmark this site, Understand that the death of the warming movement is directly related to the use of satellite imagery beginning in or near 1992. The Alarmist crowd has their 100 or more mathematical "weather models" and the normal science community has satellite imagery.
Not peer reviewed. Not scientific. This blogger is the typical non-scientific ideologue. Typical of the Fox News crowd. Gullible, not critical thinkers.
ReplyDeleteAuthor of the "study"
Craig D. Idso
Credentials
Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University.
B.S., Geography, Arizona State University.
M.S., Agronomy, University of Nebraska - Lincoln.
Background
Craig Idso has no credentials in climate science or even meteorology. He is the chairman and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Co2Science.org). It is a climate science denial organization.
The Center's publication is CO2 Science, a weekly magazine that features articles questioning the science behind man-made climate change. Craig's father Sherwood B. Idso is currently the president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide on Global Change, while his brother, Keith Idso, is the Center's Vice President.
Craig Idso is an energy industry professional, worked for Peabody Energy from 2001-2002 in St. Louis, MO.
According to internal documents from the Heartland Institute, Craig Idso appears to receive $11,600 a month from the Heartland Institute, a climate science denial organization.
Thats what passes for "science" in wingnut land.
The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (Co2Science.org). It is a climate science organization that evaluates satellite climate information among other assignments. The Center is a "denier" organization only in the sense that current climate trends (RSS satellite feed) do not support the continued rise in global temp averages. His Doctorate in Geography took him into an extensive review of climate issues. His thesis was entitled Amplitude and phase changes in the seasonal atmospheric CO2 cycle in the Northern Hemisphere. To paint him as some sort of intellectual inbred is asinine. He is an expert in CO2 modeling and such goes hand in hand with climate change and other related info.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, to argue, as you do implicitly (look the word up if you are not following me, here) in you comments, that only folks specifically qualified as Climate Alarmists can read and voice opinions on climate change, is just plain silly. Of course, that would eliminate you, and, yet, here you are, chiming in with your unqualified opinions.
You imply criticism for Dr. Idso because he earns $112,000 per year, among other considerations. I suspect you earn much more than that, with your PhD. Heck my wife and I earn $96,000 a year in retirement . . . not that much money and it certainly does not disqualify Idso. Understand that all of Climate Science is an "industry," sapping billions of dollars from our economy, millions more than the fossil fuel industry, btw.
Is the man qualified to disseminate satellite charting and review any and all science papers on the subject? OF COURSE, he is.
Why do you suppose "qualified" people in whatever discipline write papers? So the rest of us can read and critically review whatever info is out there. That's why they write their damn papers as opposed to texting the info between themselves. (They only text when they are hidding data that does not agree with their 100 or so "models).
The reader should know that mathematic weather "models" are theoretical while satellite info is empirical.
"Empirical" always trumps theory.