Re: Experiment in Sea Level Rise
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?
>
>Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler.
>Fill it about 3/4 full with tap water.
>
>Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
>overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
>container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
>container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
>appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
>from any ice contact with the wall.
>
>Let the ice melt.
>
>Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.
>
>Tell me again why sea level will rise?
>
>Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
>What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
>proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
>in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
>When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
>the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
>Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.
You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Tim Wescott
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?
>>
>>Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler. Fill it about 3/4
>>full with tap water.
>>
>>Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
>>overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
>>container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the container
>>on a table and mark the side of it where the water level appears. Make
>>sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away from any ice
>>contact with the wall.
>>
>>Let the ice melt.
>>
>>Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.
>>
>>Tell me again why sea level will rise?
>>
>>Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say? What
>>is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
>>proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water in
>>the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans? When
>>that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of the
>>oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions Al
>>Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.
>
> You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)
>
Excellent science!
* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
* Invent an experiment that _totally_, if not _purposely_ misses the
point.
* Feel proud of yourself for being clever.
Pseudo science at it's best.
Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
electronics.
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:24:08 -0800, Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Will sea level rise if the polar caps melt?
>>
>> Get a container. A tall one will work, like a tumbler.
>> Fill it about 3/4 full with tap water.
>>
>> Add ice until the container is full but not so much that the container
>> overflows or the ice protrudes above the top. Place a cover over the
>> container to minimize evaporation, a saucer will do. Place the
>> container on a table and mark the side of it where the water level
>> appears. Make sure to choose the flattest part of the meniscus away
>>from any ice contact with the wall.
>> Let the ice melt.
>>
>> Once the ice is completely melted, check the new water level.
>>
>> Tell me again why sea level will rise?
Because "dittohead science" is a pack of lies.
Your experiment is fundamentally flawed.
The sea is 3.5% salt dissloved in water. The displacement of ice is less
than the volume it will occupy as liquid water.
It will rise slightly. Floating sea ice is *pure* water frozen and
displaces its own *WEIGHT* of the denser cold brine. When the ice melts
and mixes with a typically 3.5% total dissovled solids sea water at 0C.
The increase in the total volume of the water ice when melted and mixed
with salty *sea* water in the oceans is about 3%.
Part of the rise in sea level comes from expansion of the water that is
already in the oceans as it warms up.
>>
>> Well, the south polar caps and other glaciers are on land, you say?
>> What is the volume of the ice on land, precisely? What is the relative
>> proportion of that volume of ice to the total volume of liquid water
>> in the oceans? What is the precise total surface area of the oceans?
>> When that 'precise' volume of ice is spread over the surface area of
>> the oceans how thick will it be? If you cannot answer these questions
>> Al Gore, you cannot predict sea level rise.
These numbers are standard high school calculations. It was fun to see
how little of the UK would be above sealevel if the entire polar cap ice
was melted. Never occurred to me or anyone else at the time that the
practical implications of this calculation might one day be important.
You don't need to be all that accurate to get an answer good to the
nearest 10m which is plenty good enough for planning purposes. The
number is somewhere between 60-70m depending on whether you include the
Greenland ice sheet and minor glaciers around the world.
>
> You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)
Amazing just quite how wilfully ignorant you are.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Jim Thompson
wrote:
I figured I'd snag me a weenie. Didn't figure it'd be you, Tim, but
you'll do...
Please enumerate every glacier, and it's ice volume (as ice, no
Slowman "calculations" ;-)
I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".
Then let's talk :-)
If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
give a wet fart ?:-)
Tim Wescott
Prove to me that you're not a liar or a credulous boob, first ;-), ;-)
and again ;-).
What is it about conservatives that you advance the most ridiculous
arguments then start loudly insisting that they be disproven by the most
circuitous methods possible?
No. You introduced the thread to this group, _you_ prove it or you back
down. Or consider your status as (at best) a credulous dupe to be proven.
Start with Greenland and the Antarctic, and probably half of Canada and
Siberia.
>
> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without me
> having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
Sure.
But _I_ assume you'll agree that you have a vested financial interest in
living high on the hog until you die of old age, long before any long-
term problems with current energy policies show up?
Just so we can gauge any of your responses?
>
> Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
> land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".
As I pointed out, that's your job.
>
> Then let's talk :-)
>
> If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
> give a wet fart ?:-)
Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
rat's ass?
That's good to know, Jim.
Tim Wescott
Not that there isn't a lot of willful ignorance on the left.
Biofuel, indeed.
Ouroboros Rex
It's OK, we'll stick with the 100% proven trends. You see, we have the
photos, bone-stupid demands for unneeded data by well known liars
notwithstanding. lol
http://www.livescience.com/environment/060324_glacier_melt.html
http://www.nichols.edu/DEPARTMENTS/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm
>
> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
> me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
Why, since it's not? lol
Jim Thompson
wrote:
As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
Ouroboros Rex
Kinda like yours! lol
Martin Brown
And fails to allow for the fact that the Oceans are saltwater. The
expansion on melting because of the pure water vs saltwater density
difference is only small but it is not zero.
> * Feel proud of yourself for being clever.
>
> Pseudo science at it's best.
Brain dead "Dittohead Science" from the Rush Limbaugh school of physics.
They are all pathological liars.
>
> Jim, I'm surprised you fell for it -- maybe you should stick to
> electronics.
He is a red necked fuckwit of the worst possible sort.
Not stupid but wilfully ignorant of the science and proud of it.
Regards,
Martin Brown
ian field
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
message news:27rlg51de9o3l2avr...@4ax.com...
For the past couple of days its been in the UK news that hackers have broken
into the servers at a science institute that's funded on the global warming
meal ticket.
Much of the info has been posted on the web and apparently its so revealing
that no one's taking much notice of the banking and other personal details
liberated at the same time.
Tim Wescott
Jim Thompson
wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
[snip]
>>
>> As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
>
>As anticipated... an evasion.
GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
GO GREEN!
Recycle Congress
In 2010
Tim Wescott
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
>>
>>As anticipated... an evasion.
>
> GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
> hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
> national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
> exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises. If you
wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.
If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
_poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
long as it's faked to benefit _you_.
You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.
Jim Thompson
wrote:
Show me the volume of ice you claim is going to melt and flood the
world. Otherwise STFU. Go build an ark or something. What an
annoying bastard.
Geoff
>Part of the rise in sea level comes from expansion of the water that is
>already in the oceans as it warms up.
Interesting point. You mean the surface water, of course, since only
the first 50 meters or so is very warm or sees enough light to get
warmed by the sun. The other 3000 meters of depth are closer to -2 or
-3 C except where thermal vents heat it to 600 C at the deep ocean
trenches.
Geoff
>You done gone and annoyed the leftist weenies again ;-)
>
Oopsie!
Geoff
wrote:
>* Ignore the fact that much of the ice in question is _on land_.
I did not ignore the fact. I accounted for it quite clearly. Come up
with precise volumes of ice and precise surface areas of the seas and
do the math. Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error.
Bill Sloman
Web-Site.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >> As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
>
> >As anticipated... an evasion.
>
> GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
> hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
> the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
> and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)
Jim joins Ravinghorde as gullible consumer of daft conspiracy
theories.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
wrote:
> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-I...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
> messagenews:27rlg51de9o3l2avr...@4ax.com...
Lunatic conspiracy theorists are getting excited about the
"revelations".
As far as I can see the only relevation involved is that some senior
scientist feel free to describe some of their colleagues as nitwits in
private e-mails to people they trust.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
The Arctic might be, if you excluded Greenland
> Get an accurate volume for Antarctica, separating land-based (and that
> land above and below sea level), and the "float-neutral".
It has been done.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
> Then let's talk :-)
Why would one want to talk to a nitwit who couldn't find the data on
the web?
> If it rises only enough to get New York City and Boston, would anyone
> give a wet fart ?:-)
Thats a lot of real estate. A few banks might get upset - quite of few
of their mortgages would become submarine-prime. But since that much
sea level rise would probably swamp London, the whole of the
Netherlands and most of Belgium, not to mention Bangladesh, New York
City and Boston probably wouldn't get all that much attention.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Jim Thompson
wrote:
I think Tim's either (1) been drinking, or (2) he's been cut off and
he's cranky ;-)
Michael A. Terrell
Tim Wescott wrote:
>
> Ah. So if a mountain lion only eats your neighbors you don't give a fat
> rat's ass?
That depends on the neighbor. No reason the lion should suffer.
--
The movie 'Deliverance' isn't a documentary!
mpm
>
> - Show quoted text -
SMOS will give us some answers.
It launched a few weeks ago from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome.
You'd like the instrument. - A very complicated L-band
interferometer. Weird orbit too.
A friend of mine is a scientist on the project.
Personally, I think we'll screw up the planet in other ways long
before global warming does us in.
Martin Brown
This is basic high school algebra - do your own homework.
The numbers are clear enough from a combination of remote sensing and
direct bore hole surveys. Roughly 2km thick ice over most of Antarctica
except for a few dry bits where there is arid dry desert. A similar
chunk of deep ice but not as big sits on Greenlands interior.
If all the ice on the planet were to melt then you get a 60-70m sea
rise. This is an incredibly unlikely scenario. Although working it out
has been a school geography excercise for a very long time.
The most likely sea level rise over the next century is predicted to be
somewhere in the range of 0.4m (IPCC) to 1m+-0.3m based on more recent
observational data about how the ice sheets are behaving. eg.
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=293
Most of it coming from expansion. The additional contribution from ice
melting is thought to account for roughly 30% of the observed rise.
Regards,
Martin Brown
Martin Brown
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:20:15 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>> As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
>>> As anticipated... an evasion.
>> GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
>> hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making the
>> national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked and
>> exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)
>>
>> ...Jim Thompson
>
> Changing the subject is also an evasion. You were discussing an
> 'experiment' with ice, water, and a bunch of false premises.
He a pathological Neocon liar. You are wasting your time. Dittoheads
already know that we cannot alter the climate no matter what we do. And
they will deny all evidence to the contrary. It doesn't matter how much
scientific evidence is produced their views are immutable.
If you
> wanted to make the point that AGW isn't real because some dipshits were
> faking their science, then that's the point you would have made. Instead
> you were forwarding someone's faked science and standing behind it right
> up until the moment that you got pushed a bit hard. Then you fall on the
> ground kicking and screaming like a two year old.
It is rather funny that the Dittoheads try to fake a science experiment
but cannot even get a really simple one correct. The experiment he
suggested was fundamentally flawed at the outset. Failure to notice that
the sea is *saltwater* is at best utterly incompetent and at worst
deliberate and malicious falsehood. I am inclined to believe the latter.
>
> If you really thing that faked science is so f***ing bad, why were _you_
> doing it? And if you want to be seen as smart, why were you doing so
> _poorly_? All you've done is show that you're OK with faked science, as
> long as it's faked to benefit _you_.
He is a pathological LIAR. That is all that the Dittoheads are good for.
>
> You're an _engineer_ for crying out loud! Yet whenever a subject comes
> up that calls for knee-jerk politics you don't think, instead your legs
> start spasming. What's with that? It's just a good thing for your
> clients that chip design has nothing to do with politics.
>
Maybe he only uses right turns in his layouts...
Regards,
Martin Brown
Ouroboros Rex
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:35:36 -0600, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:13:42 -0700, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
> [snip]
>>>
>>> As anticipated... no fact in the response ;-)
>>
>> As anticipated... an evasion.
>
> GFY. Wake up. Surf. Find out whose E-mail system and files got
> hacked. Global warming is proven to be a Slowmaneque hoax. Making
> the national news as I type. Of course those that have been hacked
> and exposed as criminals are screaming, "Prosecute the hackers" ;-)
It's interesting, isn't it, that even with stolen personal emails, no one
has been able to find any scientific wrongdoing? lol
Ouroboros Rex
Show us the values of all the resistors in the world before you go using
that Ohm's law! lol
Proof abounds - republicans are betas.
Ouroboros Rex
No, they don't. lol
Hal Murray
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
Is Greenland part of the Artic?
Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
if Greenland melted?
--
These are my opinions, not necessarily my employer's. I hate spam.
Jim Thompson
hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>
>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>
>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>
>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>if Greenland melted?
Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
TheM
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>
>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>if Greenland melted?
>
> Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?
M
Jim Thompson
wrote:
They used to herd CATTLE there.
Leftist weenies choose to ignore that.
Fox is the only network presently covering the climate change hoax
exposure. Wonder if Obama and the Forty Thugs will rush out and
arrest all us trouble-makers ?:-)
...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
Obama: All Sizzle and No Steak
Hal Murray
Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>
>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>if Greenland melted?
>
>Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
It's also a reasonably large land mass (even after you
correct for the distortion in typical Mercator projections)
and most of it is covered with very thick ice.
USGS says:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level
rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would
result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1).
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past
reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level
rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population,
with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in
the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3).
I'm about 100 feet above sea level. I guess I'm safe for a while.
don
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:31 +0100, "TheM" <DontNe...@test.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>>> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>>> me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>>> Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>>>
>>>> Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>>> if Greenland melted?
>>> Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>> Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
>> settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?
>>
>> M
>>
> They used to herd CATTLE there.
The name Greenland comes from Scandinavian settlers. In the Icelandic
sagas, it is said that Norwegian-born Erik the Red was exiled from
Iceland for murder. He, along with his extended family and thralls, set
out in ships to find the land that was rumoured to be to the northwest.
After settling there, he named the land Gr�nland ("Greenland") in the
hope that the pleasant name would attract settlers.[37][38] Greenland
was also called Gruntland ("Ground-land") and Engronelant (or
Engroneland) on early maps. Whether green is an erroneous transcription
of grunt ("ground"), which refers to shallow bays, or vice versa, is not
known. The southern portion of Greenland (not covered by glacier) is
indeed very green in the summer and was probably even greener in Erik's
time during the Medieval Warm Period.
Geoff
hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>USGS says:
> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
Gees, there you guys go with an 80 meter sea level rise again. Who was
it who declared emphatically that I was wrong about the uncertainty
and wide range of estimates of sea level rise? Oh, yes, it was
"Ouroboros Rex" who said "No, they don't. lol"
LOL!
Burned by your own dogma.
Michael A. Terrell
Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:31 +0100, "TheM" <DontNe...@test.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognb...@4ax.com...
> >> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
> >> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
> >>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
> >>>
> >>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
> >>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
> >>>
> >>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
> >>>
> >>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
> >>>if Greenland melted?
> >>
> >> Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
> >>
> >> ...Jim Thompson
> >
> >Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
> >settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?
> >
> >M
> >
> They used to herd CATTLE there.
>
> Leftist weenies choose to ignore that.
>
> Fox is the only network presently covering the climate change hoax
> exposure. Wonder if Obama and the Forty Thugs will rush out and
> arrest all us trouble-makers ?:-)
They are too busy partying with India and Bollywood.
Bill Sloman
You are comparing apples and pears. The 60 metre estimate involves
melting the entire Antarctic ice sheet, which would take quite a
while.
It is sliding off the land mass rather faster than it used to
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/grace20091124.html
at about 194 gigatonne per year, equivalent to about 0.5mm per year of
sea level rise, at which rate it would take 120,000 years to contibute
its 60 metre to the sea level.
More global warming could well speed this up quite a bit.
The 60 centimetre estimate is of what might happen over the next 100
years, most of it coming from the thermal expansion of the oceans as
the earth warms up. Both Greenland and Antarctica are losing mass
quite a lot faster than they were a few years ago, and the 60cm figure
probably needs to be revised upwards.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
MeowSayTongue
hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>
>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>
>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>
>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>if Greenland melted?
Greenland is a land mass, so I do not think it will be melting any time
soon.
It is, however, covered with a large amount of ice.
The part of Greenland that is above the Arctic Circle is "part of the
Arctic".
There are no places on Earth that are "part of the artic", because no
such place exists on Earth.
Take the BLANK "Follow ups to:" line OUT of your retarded news reader
setup, jerk.
MeowSayTongue
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>
>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>if Greenland melted?
>
>Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
More like "_nearly complete_ glacial coverage".
Archimedes' Lever
> Erik's
>time during the Medieval Warm Period.
Yes. Like today's warming being claimed as being due to the industrial
revolution, the idiots should understand that it is just a natural cycle.
Geoff
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>
>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
http://www.mnh.si.edu/arctic/html/resources_glossary.html
Arctic: The area lying above 66 � degrees North latitude that includes
the Northern Lands and Arctic Ocean.
Geoff
Like observing a sine wave pattern in global sea level and
extrapolating a linear or an exponential departure from the historic
pattern when predicting the future. Clearly, good science.
http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=293
"The researchers found that during the Middle Ages warm period, around
12th century, sea level was approximately 20cm higher than today.
During the 'Little Ice Age' in the 18th century, when it was possible
to skate on the Thames in winter, sea level was approximately 25cm
lower than it is today.
The team, who published thier[sic] findings in the journal Climate
dynamics, say that present sea level is within 20cm of the highest sea
level for 110,000 years."
...
"The authors believe there is a precedent for such a bold statement.
Studies from the last ice age show that ice sheets can melt quickly.
When the ice age ended 11,700 years ago, the ice sheets melted so
quickly that sea level rose 11mm a year, or one metre in a century."
All without human cause or intervention.
Bill Sloman
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:01:59 -0600,
>
Pity about that. You should learn to read more carefully. The 60 to 80
metre sea level rise depends on melting the whole of the Antartic ice
sheet, which would take quite a while - about 120,000 years if it
continued at it is current rate (which is likely to speed up, but not
all that much, at least not for the next few thousand years).
The IPCC's current prediction is for some 0.48 metres over the next
century, though that predates the recent acceleration in the glacier
flow off Greenland and Antarctica which would be good for an
additional tenth a of a metre or so if it doesn't continue to
accelerate.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
Bill Sloman
wrote:
The "natural cycle" that has raised the CO2 level in the atmosphere to
387ppm, the highest it has been for about 20 million years?
You need to do a little reading on greenhouse gases (of which CO2 is
one) before making the kind of claim that labels you as a gullible
ignoramus who has been suckered by the denialist propaganda paid for
by Exxon-Mobil and others who want to be able to keep on digging up
and selling fossil carbon for fuel, despite the damage it has already
done and the rather worse damage that more of the same would do.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
ian field
"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 23:37:31 +0100, "TheM" <DontNe...@test.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote in
>>message news:i3cog5t67qbc0ognb...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>>> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>>>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>>>
>>>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>>>
>>>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>>>if Greenland melted?
>>>
>>> Greenland is a land mass with _some_ glacial coverage.
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>
>>Don't forget to mention it used to be green in the past, when Vikings
>>settled it. Surely that wasn't due to industrial CO2?
>>
>>M
>>
> They used to herd CATTLE there.
>
> Leftist weenies choose to ignore that.
The biggest single cause of global warming is the post steam age clean up.
The irrational obsession with eliminating particulates has removed the one
thing that was offsetting any temperature rise due to CO2.
Normally the droplets of water that form clouds are seeded by pollen in the
upper atmosphere, these droplets are large which results in clouds that
aren't very reflective.
Particulates seed smaller droplets, which form more reflective clouds that
reflect more of the sun's rays back out into space.
The so called scientists are baying for the one thing that *WAS* protecting
us from global warming!
ian field
"MeowSayTongue" <MeowSa...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
message news:gq4pg5dgd29l8lt0b...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>>In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>>I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>
>>Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
>>Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>>if Greenland melted?
>
>
> Greenland is a land mass, so I do not think it will be melting any time
> soon.
How do you know..............it might be a cleverly disguised volcano.
don
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>
>> In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
>> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>
>>> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>> me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>> Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>
>> Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
>> if Greenland melted?
26 FEET
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
>
>
> Greenland is a land mass, so I do not think it will be melting any time
> soon.
>
> It is, however, covered with a large amount of ice.
The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level
by the weight of the ice sheet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
Rich Grise
> MeowSayTongue wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
>> hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>, Jim Thompson
>>> <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
>>>> me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
>>> Is Greenland part of the Artic?
>>>
>>> Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise if
>>> Greenland melted?
>
> 26 FEET
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
>>
>>
>> Greenland is a land mass, so I do not think it will be melting any
>> time
>> soon.
>>
>> It is, however, covered with a large amount of ice.
>
> The bedrock in the center of Greenland has been pressed below sea level by
> the weight of the ice sheet.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland
>
So, when the ice melts, the bedrock floats on the magma, which is pressed
down by the additional weight of the ocean, Greenland pops up, and sea
level stays the same. ;-)
Cheers!
Rich
Ouroboros Rex
Sorry, no moving the goalposts - you referred specifically to
expectations.
"Show how X m^3 of ice are spread across Y m^2 of ocean
> and tell us how many meters of rise to expect. Estimates range from 60
> centimeters to 60 meters, that's a hell of a lot of margin of error."
No one expects such a rise.
Feel free to prove me wrong instead of lying about your original post.
Hal Murray
Looks like most of Greenland is above the Arctic circle:
http://www.geographicguide.net/america/greenland.htm
Bill Garber
<don> wrote in message news:d8KdnVlbRst5w5DW...@forethought.net...
> MeowSayTongue wrote:
> > On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 13:07:36 -0600,
> > hal-u...@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4mnlg5d3uslb1j471...@4ax.com>,
> >> Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> writes:
> >>
> >>> I assume you'll agree that the Arctic is essentially neutral without
> >>> me having to pull out your finger nails ?:-)
> >> Is Greenland part of the Artic?
> >>
> >> Anybody got the number handy? How much would sea level rise
> >> if Greenland melted?
>
> 26 FEET
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
I think you miss-quoted, although it is still quite a bit.
"If the entire 2.85 million km� of ice were to melt, it
would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft)."
Bill Garber
Jim Thompson
And what effect is _sucking_ all those calories going to do to world
climate ?:-)
MeowSayTongue
Yes... Just like the ones on Europa.
If only we could dig a 1500 ft deep reservoir the size of lake
superior. Cover it, and then cover that with solar cells.
I would fill it ONLY with glacial waters from the North.
Then... I would dig another right next to that one.
Hell, just dam off the grand canyon and fill it up, like they did the
Flaming Gorge.
THAT is our best bet against rising seas. Also, it forces new
glaciation to begin, which draws its water from sea evaporations.
MeowSayTongue
Hal Murray
>And what effect is _sucking_ all those calories going to do to world
>climate ?:-)
It would probably make clouds in AZ. :)
Paul Keinanen
wrote:
>
>So, when the ice melts, the bedrock floats on the magma, which is pressed
>down by the additional weight of the ocean, Greenland pops up, and sea
>level stays the same. ;-)
In Greenland, the ice is up to 2 km above sea level and up to 1 km
below sea level, so a total of 3 km of ice in some places.
Even if the ice melted completely today, only the 2 km above sea level
will increase the ocean level. There will still be a 1 km deep lake in
the middle of Greenland, which does not initially affect the ocean
level. It will take more than 10000 years, before the bottom of the
lake will reach the sea level, emptying the lake water into the ocean.
Paul
xray
<To-Email-Use-Th...@My-Web-Site.com> wrote:
>What an
>annoying bastard.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
Reading the above all together is perfect. Indeed, YOU ARE an annoying
bastard.
Caught with no way to defend your deliberate biased scumbaggerism, after
several attempts to deflect, you now fall back to calling names.
You right-eous limp weenies are so predictable.