Satellites provided misleading information on Global Warming
Friar Broccoli
Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
Desertphile
Good thing they went there to look. Bad thing it's more bad news.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Robert Grumbine
>
> Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
> http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
job correctly, as they have all along. It is the humans who made a bad
assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for 'multiyear ice'.
That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The humans have been making
the mistake (imho it's for years) of thinking that multiyear ice meant
thick ice. As Barber describes, this can be in serious error.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Desertphile
<bo...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> In article <bcd86eff-aa2c-41f7...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >
> > Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
> > http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
> I'm taking this up on my blog Wednesday. The satellites are doing their
> job correctly, as they have all along. It is the humans who made a bad
> assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for 'multiyear ice'.
> That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The humans have been making
> the mistake (imho it's for years) of thinking that multiyear ice meant
> thick ice. As Barber describes, this can be in serious error.
This might help explain why sea level has risen higher, faster,
than previously predicted.
Friar Broccoli
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:32:24 -0600, Robert Grumbine
>
> > In article <bcd86eff-aa2c-41f7-8964-d2a0f96b8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> > > Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
> > >http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
> > I'm taking this up on my blog Wednesday. The satellites are doing their
> > job correctly, as they have all along. It is the humans who made a bad
> > assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for 'multiyear ice'.
> > That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The humans have been making
> > the mistake (imho it's for years) of thinking that multiyear ice meant
> > thick ice. As Barber describes, this can be in serious error.
>
> This might help explain why sea level has risen higher, faster,
> than previously predicted.
No because melting SEA ice will not raise sea levels.
Only ice from land (melted or not) will raise sea levels.
The other major contributor is thermal expansion of
water.
Robert Grumbine
Sea ice can indeed change sea level. Turns out I was the first person
to compute by how much. See the sea level faq at my site,
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ for how it works out.
On the other hand, the effect is a matter of only a few mm, which is
too small to explain the observed higher (than IPCC expectations)
sea level rise of the last 20 years.
Friar Broccoli
> In article <d7ed8e0f-eb37-4dce-ad24-77ad688d7...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 7:30 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> > wrote:
> >> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:32:24 -0600, Robert Grumbine
>
> >> <b...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> >> > In article <bcd86eff-aa2c-41f7-8964-d2a0f96b8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >> > > Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
> >> > >http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
> >> > I'm taking this up on my blog Wednesday. The satellites are doing their
> >> > job correctly, as they have all along. It is the humans who made a bad
> >> > assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for 'multiyear ice'.
> >> > That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The humans have been making
> >> > the mistake (imho it's for years) of thinking that multiyear ice meant
> >> > thick ice. As Barber describes, this can be in serious error.
>
> >> This might help explain why sea level has risen higher, faster,
> >> than previously predicted.
>
> > No because melting SEA ice will not raise sea levels.
> > Only ice from land (melted or not) will raise sea levels.
> > The other major contributor is thermal expansion of
> > water.
>
> Sea ice can indeed change sea level. Turns out I was the first person
>
> On the other hand, the effect is a matter of only a few mm, which is
> too small to explain the observed higher (than IPCC expectations)
> sea level rise of the last 20 years.
As I understand your argument the rise is:
1) local (where the fresh water is)
2) temporary (until it is fully mixed)
Correct?
heekster
From the FAQ:
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html
" Why should we worry about the presence or absence of the ice
shelves? They can't change sea level if they disappeared."
As you stated, you assume that the ice somehow melts instantaneously,
and that it also, miraculously "retains its shape" . Realistically,
the ice does not melt instantaneously, and the oceans have time to
assimilate the icemelt.
Robert Grumbine
Actually, I was wrong about the ice shelves (they're a matter of
3-4 cm, vs. the 3-4 mm of sea ice) for the same reason I'm right about
sea ice. It's a long time since I've updated that article -- keeping it,
any more, as is only on the grounds of Noerdlinger's citation.
It's also been done as a lab experiment by the paper/authors that
tracked me down as the first person to compute the effect for (even)
sea ice:
Peter D. Noerdlinger and Kay R. Brower, in The Geophysical Journal
International, 170, pp. 145-150, 2007 The melting of floating ice raises
the ocean level. The DOI is 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03472.x
In any case, neither the 'retains shape' nor 'instantaneous' are
necessary for the effect. They make doing the math easier is all.
But you can also do it (others have, including a guy who thought he
was proving me wrong) with neither assumption, just melting quantity
X of fresh water ice (displacing its mass of salt water) and then
mixing it thoroughly with the ocean (for one version of a different
route). The ocean becomes slightly less saline, and that gives the
same computed sea level rise as my easier version.
Friar Broccoli
> In article <t985h5d18709c4s5e7n5504thqolv74...@4ax.com>, heekster wrote:
> > On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 20:03:40 -0600, Robert Grumbine
>
> >>In article <d7ed8e0f-eb37-4dce-ad24-77ad688d7...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> >>> On Nov 28, 7:30 pm, Desertphile <desertph...@invalid-address.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:32:24 -0600, Robert Grumbine
>
> >>>> <b...@saltmine.radix.net> wrote:
> >>>> > In article <bcd86eff-aa2c-41f7-8964-d2a0f96b8...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Friar Broccoli wrote:
>
> >>>> > > Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
> >>>> > >http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
> >>>> > I'm taking this up on my blog Wednesday. The satellites are doing their
> >>>> > job correctly, as they have all along. It is the humans who made a bad
> >>>> > assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for 'multiyear ice'.
> >>>> > That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The humans have been making
> >>>> > the mistake (imho it's for years) of thinking that multiyear ice meant
> >>>> > thick ice. As Barber describes, this can be in serious error.
>
> >>>> This might help explain why sea level has risen higher, faster,
> >>>> than previously predicted.
>
> >>> No because melting SEA ice will not raise sea levels.
> >>> Only ice from land (melted or not) will raise sea levels.
> >>> The other major contributor is thermal expansion of
> >>> water.
>
> >> Sea ice can indeed change sea level. Turns out I was the first person
> >>to compute by how much. See the sea level faq at my site,
I see my error now, but I think it is easier to understand the
phenomenon if you say that ice keeps the sea level lower
than would otherwise be expected because it removes the
weight of dissolved minerals from the floating ice pack.
VoiceOfReason
> Report begins 1min 44sec after start:http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
Yikes! That's pretty damned disturbing. :-(
Friar Broccoli
Since I live in Canada, I hear a lot of stories about the perma
frost layer. Basically it's history. I suspect we are already
experiencing large scale methane release, and into a runaway
feedback loop. Florida voted for Bush and now God is
going to punish them.
My prediction:
Arctic ocean: ice free in summer BEFORE 2015.
Desertphile
There is much better evidencde for global warming than for Florida
voring for Bush2. There's adequate evidence Florida didn't.
> My prediction:
> Arctic ocean: ice free in summer BEFORE 2015.
Xavier Onnasis
news:slrnhh3co...@saltmine.radix.net:
> In article
> <bcd86eff-aa2c-41f7...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> Friar Broccoli wrote:
>>
>> Report begins 1min 44sec after start:
>> http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/media/2009-2010/mp3/qq-2009-11-28_01.mp3
>
> I'm taking this up on my blog Wednesday. The satellites are doing
> their job correctly, as they have all along.
go, go, go CALIPSO!!!
> It is the humans who made a
> bad assumption. Namely, there is a satellite signature for
> 'multiyear ice'. That was correctly sensed by the satellite. The
> humans have been making the mistake (imho it's for years) of
> thinking that multiyear ice meant thick ice. As Barber describes,
> this can be in serious error.
>
>
--
XO
Robert Grumbine
extent. You're welcome to come by my blog and add a guess. Or a bet in
quatloos. This year, I only had 2 takers. Beat both, so I'm 51 quatloos
to the good. (50 for one, which I only barely won, and 1 from the other --
where I was giving 50:1 odds and won easily).
I doubt the summer will be ice free before 2022 (that being the most
extreme take from my current guesstimation method).