Antarctic melting may be speeding up
Marco
Rising sea levels and melting polar ice-sheets are at upper limits of
projections, leaving some human population centers already unable to
cope, top world scientists say as they analyze latest satellite data.
A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) in February projected sea level gains of 18-59 centimeters (7-23
inches) this century from temperature rises of 1.8-4.0 Celsius (3.2-7.8
Farenheit).
raylopez99
estimates by the IPCC, which have been coming down over the years. In
fact, a yet to be published (but leaked last year by the Telegraph, a
UK newspaper) IPCC estimate for mean sea level rise HALVES the
previous estimates, and estimates that at the lower bound mean sea
level rise due to greenhouse gases will be a mere 2 inches this
century.
More alarmist propaganda by a small sub-group of the IPCC bent on
getting media publicity.
Some people will do anything to get on TV.
RL
Lloyd
> The below estimates are too high, and contradict the majority of
> estimates by the IPCC, which have been coming down over the years. In
> fact, a yet to be published (but leaked last year by the Telegraph, a
> UK newspaper) IPCC estimate for mean sea level rise HALVES the
> previous estimates,
Why do you assume the average is the most likely value?
>and estimates that at the lower bound mean sea
> level rise due to greenhouse gases will be a mere 2 inches this
> century.
>
And the upper bound is 2 feet. You are dishonest when you only cite
the lower bound.
aloha.kakuikanu
> http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSSYD27511820070323
First, Reuters is a lowest possible news source. They used to cook
global warming scary story daily long before the current hysteria
started.
Second, ice melting is the smaller of the many factors affecting sea
level. Thermal expansion is cited
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
to be more significant. But of course, "thermal expansion" is not a
concept that media is willing to explain to general public. They show
you meaningless ice breaking video, and keep silent about thermal
expansion.
Now, before you alarmist start pissing your pants, let me explain that
there are many unknowns, which invalidate any prediction. First, all
the GW "models" predict more warming over the land than over the
ocean. In fact, the recorded ocean temperature fails to confirm any
warming. Second, if there were a warming on the sea surface, how deep
it propagates? I would find it hardly to believe that the warming
would go beyond thermocline, which would render the whole thermal
expansion a non issue.
Invasion of the Crackpots
Roger Coppock
wrote:
> On Mar 23, 7:00 am, Marco <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSSYD27511820070323
>
> First, Reuters is a lowest possible news source. They used to cook
> global warming scary story daily long before the current hysteria
> started.
>
> Second, ice melting is the smaller of the many factors affecting sea
> level. Thermal expansion is cited
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>
> to be more significant. But of course, "thermal expansion" is not a
> concept that media is willing to explain to general public. They show
> you meaningless ice breaking video, and keep silent about thermal
> expansion.
I agree.
>
> Now, before you alarmist start pissing your pants, let me explain that
> there are many unknowns, which invalidate any prediction. First, all
> the GW "models" predict more warming over the land than over the
> ocean.
This prediction goes back to Arrhenius, and before.
> In fact, the recorded ocean temperature fails to confirm any
> warming.
Just plain wrong. Please see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2007&month_last=02&sat=-1&sst=1&type=trends&mean_gen=0112&year1=1880&year2=2006&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=1200&pol=reg
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len7.pdf
> Second, if there were a warming on the sea surface, how deep
> it propagates?
http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len7.pdf
"surprisingly deep"
http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0208.html
> I would find it hardly to believe that the warming
> would go beyond thermocline,
The scientific literature says otherwise.
> which would render the whole thermal
> expansion a non issue.
Nope.
Joe Fischer
>And the upper bound is 2 feet. You are dishonest when you only cite
>the lower bound.
So you think we should shut down factories
to reduce emissions when even the IPCC doesn't
know if sea level will rise 2 inches or 2 feet?
Joe Fischer
Invasion of the Crackpots
kT
At 2+ mm/year a one foot rise in a century is guaranteed. We have clear
evidence of a 6 meter rise in the not too distant past. We have
identified the sources of this 6 meter sea level rise. We have
identified multimeter sea level rises in the very near past. We are thus
at very great risk for a 6 meter sea level rise in the very near future.
I don't see how we can make it any clearer. You continue on this path at
your own peril. What you do is directly related to the final outcome.
--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html
Joe Fischer
>Joe Fischer wrote:
>> On 23 Mar 2007 "Lloyd" <lpa...@emory.edu> wrote:
>>> And the upper bound is 2 feet. You are dishonest when you only cite
>>> the lower bound.
>>
>> So you think we should shut down factories
>> to reduce emissions when even the IPCC doesn't
>> know if sea level will rise 2 inches or 2 feet?
>
>At 2+ mm/year a one foot rise in a century is guaranteed.
Can you elaborate on that math?
>We have clear
>evidence of a 6 meter rise in the not too distant past. We have
>identified the sources of this 6 meter sea level rise.
What were they, not burning oil surely,
and I think there was at least half as much coal
being burned between 1900 and 1950 as now,
which may have caused cooling.
I would not suggest burning dirty coal again,
but maybe there will be people who would say
that all power plants should remove the scrubbers.
>We have
>identified multimeter sea level rises in the very near past. We are thus
>at very great risk for a 6 meter sea level rise in the very near future.
>
>I don't see how we can make it any clearer. You continue on this path at
>your own peril. What you do is directly related to the final outcome.
Who is "we". I am too old to be scared, and
there is nothing I can do, except say how silly the whole
hysteria is, if academia, industry and government can't
find a solution without the public involvement, we will
just have to wait to see what happens.
Maybe the Cleveland volcano erupting will melt
the ice on its upper slopes, but don't blame that on me.
Joe Fischer
raylopez99
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:22:37 -0600, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >>> And the upper bound is 2 feet. You are dishonest when you only cite
> >>> the lower bound.
>
> >> So you think we should shut down factories
> >> to reduce emissions when even the IPCC doesn't
> >> know if sea level will rise 2 inches or 2 feet?
>
> >At 2+ mm/year a one foot rise in a century is guaranteed.
>
> Can you elaborate on that math?
Hey Joe, the AGW 'tards cannot elaborate on the math--they just play
chickenlittle.
>
> >We have clear
> >evidence of a 6 meter rise in the not too distant past. We have
> >identified the sources of this 6 meter sea level rise.
>
> What were they, not burning oil surely,
> and I think there was at least half as much coal
> being burned between 1900 and 1950 as now,
> which may have caused cooling.
You got me thinking: if Peak Oil (Hubbert's Peak) says the world has
already used up half the fossil fuels, and if the rise in sea
tempeature as well as land temperature as a result is relatively
miniscule, then burning the other half (still in the ground) might
well result in a very small temperature and sea level rise, along the
lines of the two inches the IPCC predicts at the lower bound rather
than the 2 feet the 'tards scream about.
Something to think about.
And I agree with you that regardless, there's nothing we can do about
GW since there's too much uncertaintly. A mild carbon/ gasoline tax,
for conservation and/or US budget deficit reduction purposes, however,
is not a bad idea IMO.
RL
Crackpot Zombie Hordes
> On Mar 23, 2:41 pm, "aloha.kakuikanu" <aloha.kakuik...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 7:00 am, Marco <m...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSSYD27511820070323
>
> > First, Reuters is a lowest possible news source. They used to cook
> > global warming scary story daily long before the current hysteria
> > started.
>
> > Second, ice melting is the smaller of the many factors affecting sea
> > level. Thermal expansion is cited
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
>
> > to be more significant. But of course, "thermal expansion" is not a
> > concept that media is willing to explain to general public. They show
> > you meaningless ice breaking video, and keep silent about thermal
> > expansion.
>
> I agree.
>
>
>
> > Now, before you alarmist start pissing your pants, let me explain that
> > there are many unknowns, which invalidate any prediction. First, all
> > the GW "models" predict more warming over the land than over the
> > ocean.
>
> This prediction goes back to Arrhenius, and before.
>
> > In fact, the recorded ocean temperature fails to confirm any
> > warming.
>
>
> http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len7.pdf
>
> > Second, if there were a warming on the sea surface, how deep
> > it propagates?
>
> http://www.nerc-essc.ac.uk/~olb/PAPERS/len7.pdf
>
> "surprisingly deep"http://archive.greenpeace.org/climate/database/records/zgpz0208.html
>
>
> > I would find it hardly to believe that the warming
> > would go beyond thermocline,
>
> The scientific literature says otherwise.
>
> > which would render the whole thermal
> > expansion a non issue.
>
> Nope.
Then you need an entirely NEW PHYSICS. The current standard model of
physics describes thermal expansion, reducing the density, thereby
causing buoyancy according to Archimedes Principle of displacement.
Since Archimedes' Principle of displacement is the only physics which
can describe convection in both air and water currents, the entire
theory of global warming fails without it. Hot air does not rise die
to lessening of gravity caused by heat -- the gravity remains
constant. Therefore some other principle is the causitive factor.
Archimedes' Principle is the only one there is that explains the
evidence plus a whole lot more. It also explains the thermocline.
Strip away the Archimedes' Principle explanation of the themocline and
you are left with nothing to explain measured temperature differences.
The fact that cold water sinks and warm water floats is the basis for
the entire oceanography of currents and global heat distribution.
Strip away Archimedes' Principle and you are left with no explanation
at all.
The thermocline is the division line which separates the warm layer
and the coldlay, each responding oppositely, warm rising, cold
descending. The depth of the thermocline varies by location, and
temperature, but it does represent an immisible boundary of very
little mixing. The fact that a thermocline exists means that the ocean
depths are virtually non-existent when computing CO2 sinking in the
oceans, as the top layer gets saturated and does not dilute with the
depths over the vast span of the seas. Combined with the fact that
warmer water holds less CO2 dissolved, means it becomes a de facto
barrier in sinking CO2 in the ocean depths, and becomes yet another
feedback mechanism releasing stored CO2 as it heats up. Further, there
is no reduction in the CO2 thermal absorption due to being dissolved
in liquids -- CO2 is an IR absorber in all of it's states, gas,
liquid, or solid, so dissolved CO2 IR saturation in the upper thin
layer of the sea surfaces proceeds unabated whether the CO2 is
airborne or water-logged..
You should not by any means believe that physics is completed. THere
is more yet unknown than known, but the tried and true Archimedes'
Principle is unlikely to be over-turned by new revelations in Quantum
activities.
Joe Fischer
>And I agree with you that regardless, there's nothing we can do about
>GW since there's too much uncertaintly. A mild carbon/ gasoline tax,
>for conservation and/or US budget deficit reduction purposes, however,
>is not a bad idea IMO.
>RL
Taxes are always a bad idea, an outright limit
on imports, rationing, or ban on oil from certain parts
of the world might be better, reducing purchases
directly should drop prices quickly, and lower
prices helps reduce the trade deficit.
Certain types of taxes to reduce the federal budget
deficit would be ok as long as they are not taxes on sales
of any kind, it is sales taxes that already costs the poor
more than any other tax.
Now, even though I have been called a conservative,
I think an across the board tax on everybody with more than
$100,000 in assets would be the way to go, it might even get
people with idle money to start new businesses.
It would not discourage purchases, and purchases are
what pays the poor so they can buy food and keep warm.
Joe Fischer
Roger Coppock
Beam me up, Scotty.
Gonna Bust Up Exxon's Crime Ring
> Kook! Kook! A Chew, Baby!
> Beam me up, Scotty.
Are you going on record refuting Archimedes' Principle?
Roger Coppock
No, I'm on the record saying,
"Kook! Kook! A Chew, Baby!
Beam me up, Scotty."
LOL!
OILY Political Corruption
So you are saying that's a synonym for hot things are less attracted
to gravity and that's why hot air rises? How about lava, hotter than
air, does it rise too? Why not? Archimedes Principle, it is less
buoyant.
birdog
">
> Now, even though I have been called a conservative,
> I think an across the board tax on everybody with more than
> $100,000 in assets would be the way to go, it might even get
> people with idle money to start new businesses.
> It would not discourage purchases, and purchases are
> what pays the poor so they can buy food and keep warm.
>
> Joe Fischer
$100,000 in ASSETS??? Why not just advocate an across the board income tax
increase? You say tax everyone who owns a home!
Even if you meant income, you're talking about a great number of households
with two adults working. Punish them for their industry? Idle money? Anyone
with a nest egg of any size, unless they're morons, have it invested, which
in invariably reinvested in the economy.
A tax increase would not depress purchases? Please don't vote in the future!
You're not a conservative to any degree in my vernacular!
Philip H. Hart
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:22:37 -0600, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
> >Joe Fischer wrote:
> >>> And the upper bound is 2 feet. You are dishonest when you only cite
> >>> the lower bound.
>
> >> So you think we should shut down factories
> >> to reduce emissions when even the IPCC doesn't
> >> know if sea level will rise 2 inches or 2 feet?
>
> >At 2+ mm/year a one foot rise in a century is guaranteed.
>
> Can you elaborate on that math?
You wax lyrical (but improperly) elsewhere on the Physics of gases,
yet are unable to multiply 2+ mm by 100 and convert the result to
Imperial units. You're playing us for laughs, right?
In that case - Bwahahahaha......
Joe Fischer
>$100,000 in ASSETS??? Why not just advocate an across the board income tax
>increase?
Because the people with more than $100,000 in assets
can afford it. Make that $100,000 in NET assets if you
like, if it isn't net, it isn't an asset.
>You say tax everyone who owns a home!
Bull, half the homes in the US will not bring $50,000.
>Even if you meant income, you're talking about a great number of households
>with two adults working.
There is an income tax now.
>Punish them for their industry?
No, if additional taxes are needed, then tax those
who can pay those taxes with ease.
>Idle money? Anyone
>with a nest egg of any size, unless they're morons, have it invested, which
>in invariably reinvested in the economy.
Buying public stock does not put money into
the economy, DUMMY, unless it is a start up or a
public offering by the company.
>A tax increase would not depress purchases?
Not in the same way a tax on purchases would.
>Please don't vote in the future!
Ok.
>You're not a conservative to any degree in my vernacular!
Perhaps not, is there any left in this Federal Republic?
A tax on assets is the only tax that is across the
board and levied against people that can afford it, it would
be in mills, not percent, cities and states have been taxing
assets for a long time, and also restricting sales with sales
taxes.
The same percentage would hit the big guy with
the biggest amount, and it would still be only a small
fraction of the amount of interest he could get if his
assets are all secure investments.
But this was in opposition to any stupid
liberal taxes suggested by AlBore, not for just any
reason. It is shameful that an ex vice-president
would get involved in any carbon credit scheme,
where money spent would do absolutely nothing
to reduce emissions, and trading credits would
do absolutely nothing to reduce emissions.
Just like all liberal tax and spend ideas,
any form of carbon taxing is harmful, vain, useless,
ineffective and suffers the same waste of money
as all government programs.
Joe Fischer
Joe Fischer
Apparently I can do better than Parker,
is there a reason you can't let him explain how he
gets a guaranteed one foot rise?
Joe Fischer
Philip H. Hart
He's probably decided that you are not worth his time.
Joe Fischer
>He's probably decided that you are not worth his time.
And him saying, "lie, lie, lie" isn't worth a dime,
even though he is paid $40 an hour while he types it.
Joe Fischer
Philip H. Hart
> On 26 Mar 2007 "Philip H. Hart" <auldph...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >He's probably decided that you are not worth his time.
>
> And him saying, "lie, lie, lie" isn't worth a dime,
> even though he is paid $40 an hour while he types it.
At $40 p.h. I would have expected him to keep replying. It sounds
like the job I need. Would you be so kind as to send me the addy (or
telephone number) of the personnel department at the place he works.
Exxon is Toxic Waste
unequivocal"
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1603320,00.html
Warming May Create Climates, Cut Others
Some climates may disappear from Earth entirely, not just from their
current locations, while new climates could develop if the planet
continues to warm, a study says. Such changes would endanger some
plants and animals while providing new opportunities for others, said
John W. Williams, an assistant professor of geography at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Using global change forecasts prepared for the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, researchers led by Williams used computer models to
estimate how climates in various parts of the world would be affected.
Their findings are being published in this week's online edition of
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The IPCC, representing the world's leading climate scientists,
reported in February that "warming of the climate system is
unequivocal, as is now evident from observation of increases in global
average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice
and rising global average sea level."
Tropical regions in particular may face unexpected changes,
particularly the rain forests in the Amazon and Indonesia, Williams'
researchers concluded.
This was surprising, Williams said in a telephone interview, since the
tropics tend to have little variation in weather.
But that also means temperature changes of 3 or 4 degrees in these
regions might have more impact than a change of 5 to 8 degrees in a
region that is accustomed to regular changes.
Species living in tropical areas may be less able to adapt, he said,
adding that that is speculative and needs further study.
Areas like the Southeastern United States and the Arabian Peninsula
may also be affected, the researchers said, adding that mountain areas
such as in Peruvian and Colombian Andes and regions such as Siberia
and southern Australia face a risk of climates disappearing
altogether.
That doesn't mean these regions would have no climate at all - rather
their climate would change and the conditions currently in these areas
would not occur elsewhere on Earth.
That would pose a risk to species living in those areas, Williams
observed.
If some regions develop new climates that don't now exist, that might
provide an opportunity for species that live there, Williams said.
"But we can't make a prediction because it's outside our current
experience and outside the experience of these species