Global Warming

First, the text, which they ripped from the London Times:

Sea levels will rise much faster than previously forecast because of the rate that glaciers and ice sheets are melting, a study has found.

Research commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program concludes that the rises will substantially exceed forecasts that do not take into account the latest data and observations.

The adjusted outlook, announced at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco, suggests that recent predictions of a rise of between 7 inches and 2 feet over the next century are conservative.

The study predicts that sea-level rises will be far higher than the levels that were set out last year by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

The research looked at prehistoric periods when the climate changed dramatically over the course of decades, and evaluated the mechanisms behind such rapid transformation.

Rising sea levels were one of the major elements involved in past episodes, along with faster glacial melting, droughts and changes to the Atlantic Ocean’s heat-driven circulation.

Ok. So we have two major problems here in a very short little piece. The commenters on the site all nailed them for this. And it's pretty damn important stuff too.

First off, did you notice how they flat out admitted this has all happened before? I think I've mentioned this several times in the past, and have talked about it at length with people I know. But it bears repeating again. Who are we to say that the climate we know right this second is the One True Climate for the Earth? I think it's pretty clear by now that if they're admitting that our climate has shifted drastically in the past within the span of decades that what we're seeing now is nothing out of the ordinary. We're just alive to watch it unfold. One might note that we weren't around in prehistoric periods. At least not in any meaningful capacity. So if the planet warmed, and it did, we didn't cause it. Stop and think about this. You know all that oil up in Alaska, right? The black gooey crud they find buried under miles of frozen tundra? That oil didn't get there because of us. It got there because at one time, Barrow Alaska was a tropical climate. It was a tropical climate for a considerable length of time and stayed that way long after Pangea broke apart and Alaska got where it is now. Pictures of polar bears floating on slivers of ice are great propaganda pieces, but they're nothing more. The ice age which gripped this planet lasted for a damn long time once it came and it's only been 15,000 years or so since it ended. Look up the data, most scientists believe the Earth has a 20,000 climate cycle. If we're in year 15,000 then it's going to get a lot hotter here in the next 5,000 years and we can't stop it. Climate change is real. It's not our fault though.

So given that climate change is real, what about all the dire predictions that melting ice will cause all our coastlines to get flooded out? Well to use a British phrase, bollocks. A commenter on the Fox site pointed out a really simple thing we all did as kids in science class when learning about water displacement. Stick ice in it. Measure how high up the glass it goes. Wait for it to melt. Measure again. Guess what? The water level dropped, because the ice is no longer displacing it. The experiment has been validated in much larger scale before too. What's that mean for the big bad ocean? It means all those icebergs people are worried about, which float on the water, will melt and cause sea levels to drop rather than rise. One scientist even goes so far as to call it fraud and uses some rather compelling arguments to get there. Not the least of which is the geologist idiots who sampled tide gauges in Hong Kong which are rooted on land which is subsiding. Sort of a bad move, yes? But they went further and took the data from the faulty tide gauge and "corrected" the lack of a "trend" in the real data. Yeah, I'd say that's fraud.

But ignore all the politically motivated crap. Go back to 4th grade science. Melt the ice in the glass. Or, in this case, melt the polar caps. What will you get? Water is water, and the experiment is just as valid for large volumes of salt water as it is for fresh water. Sea levels will drop, if they do much of anything at all. Seriously, there's unlikely to be enough polar ice left to do any significant harm to anyone anywhere even if Predator himself came and melted it all with his space ray in one night. The injection of colder water won't even mean much. As the climate continues to warm, all that water is going to heat up a bit. But unless you're talking about a global average temperature of 120 degrees it's hard to fathom how the expanded water volume from a 1 degree rise, as they predict, will do anything at all.

Folks, the whole thing is a damn scam. In the 1970s everyone had their panic hats on about the next ice age coming in 30 years. I don't know about you, but here we are 30 years later and what? Is there an ice age? Some might think so because it's been pretty crazy cold in a lot of places recently. But come on. Follow the money. Who currently stands to benefit from all this crap? Al Gore and his carbon offset cronies are raking in millions of dollars selling completely phantom goods. That's the only inconvenient truth there is to be had. It's what Al doesn't want you to know, and the liberal left will do anything to keep the real truth from being too inconvenient to them.
"It is pointless to resist, my son." -- Darth Vader
"Resistance is futile." -- The Borg
"Mother's coming for me in the dragon ships. I don't like these itchy clothes, but I have to wear them or it frightens the fish." -- Thurindil

Well. I guess that's that then.

« The Sickness
Valkyrie »

Posted on Dec 23, 2008 3:26 am by Samson in: | 20 comment(s) [Closed]
Nice, so, as we've all been saying all along, Global Warming is a joke, yes, there is an ongoing climate change but it has nothing to do with humans nor is it even unusual for this planet, it's just part of the normal planetary cycle. Go figure, who'd have thought.. oh, wait.. *rolling his eyes* ..hey, does that mean we should each get a nobel too?

Yes. I think we should all get a nobel prize. After all, they gave Al Gore one and he LIED. Ah well :)

And as a nifty followup to this, check this out:,2933,472084,00.html

Read that and you tell me who's scaremongering. I mean, come on, in 40 years the human race will be savage and cannibalistic?

Here's the thing about the ice/water displacement experiment: The areas of effect are different. When you do it in a glass, the water is even over the whole surface, and there is nothing to substantially differentiate any area of the glass from any other. You've basically got just gravity and surface tension acting on the water. So when the ice melts, the resulting water spreads evenly throughout the glass, and the water level as a whole drops.

However, the ocean's surface isn't uniform. Nor are its depths. The ocean is subject and extremely sensitive to variations in surface temperature, water pressure, and all the rest of it. Not to mention it's got the Coriolis effect and a whole host of atmosphere-ocean interactions so complex that only the improved computing power over the past few decades has been what allows scientists to model it remotely properly. These are some of the factors behind trade winds, ocean currents, and phenomena like El Nino.

What this means is that not all water is created equal in the ocean. The ice that's at the North Pole is not just ice sitting in a glass of water; it's ice sitting at a specific point in a system of temperature and pressure currents. Take that ice and melt it and make it subject to oceanic currents, and now that icewater is going to migrate to and cause all sorts of ripple effects in places it wasn't supposed to be. Cold water from ice melt will sink faster, and it'll lower the temperature of the water around it. That could to force more water to sink faster and push up less warm water above it, or it could actually slow down the system of oceanic currents and thus affect wind patterns.

Also, colder water is denser. Take that cold ice melt and let it drift down to the mid-Atlantic. It'll warm up. So it'll expand. Back to the same volume displacement as the old icebergs? No. But it's not where the icebergs were; it's now in a position to flood coastlines. Decreasing the volume of ocean water can be counteracted by putting that water in a different place, and that's one of the problems with the ice-cube-in-a-glass analogy.

In 40 years? You mean that the human race isn't already savage and cannibalistic?!?

On the glass of water experiment, Regina, I think you're forgetting that we're talking about a drastic one degree temperature difference and the known fact that water always seeks its own level, if the entire ocean was as sensitive as you're implying we'd have major (world-wide) problems daily due to such things as the differences in temperature between night and day (which are far more than one degree), let alone seasonal changes.

Even if we accept that the ice cube experiment is flawed in this instance, why then have we not been able to substantively measure a real rise in sea levels over the last 10 years? I mean, after all, the northern polar cap is almost gone. The southern polar cap is severely depleted. If all that melting ice was supposed to bring about coastal flooding, why has it not happened yet? I think the answer is pretty clear - and that is that the ice cube experiment is spot on. Ice melts. Less water is displaced. No problem.

What you seem to be arguing is that global warming is real, coastal flooding is inevitable, and it's all because there are hurricanes. Or wind. Or storms. Or whatever. That happens all the time.

Also, vast volumes of cold water sink already. They don't then move south and suddenly all become warm water. Ocean currents generated by the sinking of cold water are powered by more cold water sinking again to replace the lost volume. Gravity sucks. Heat gets lost into the atmosphere and ultimately shed into space. If it didn't we'd have all been fried millenia ago.

if the entire ocean was as sensitive as you're implying we'd have major (world-wide) problems daily due to such things as the differences in temperature between night and day (which are far more than one degree), let alone seasonal changes.

There's a lot of water, though, and it runs quite deep. The shift in temperature between a day and a night happens on such a short timescale that the heat change never really gets to affect the water. When you spread the change in heat in a 24-hour cycle over the ocean's surface, never mind through its depths, its impact is cut to irrelevancy.

On timescales of a season, yes, you can have more drastic changes when the average temperature is changed. See also: hurricanes.

I mean, after all, the northern polar cap is almost gone. The southern polar cap is severely depleted. If all that melting ice was supposed to bring about coastal flooding, why has it not happened yet?

Good question. Let me look up the IPCC report and get back to you on that.

They don't then move south and suddenly all become warm water. Ocean currents generated by the sinking of cold water are powered by more cold water sinking again to replace the lost volume.

No, when cold water sinks, it pushes less cold and/or dense water to the surface, warming it as it goes. Roughly speaking, the warmer equatorial water gets pushed by winds further towards the poles, where it becomes colder and denser, sinks again, and powers the cycle some more. (This method doesn't drive ALL the currents, but it does drive our main Atlantic one, as well as some of the others.)

What I am arguing, and what I should seem to be arguing, is that the oceans are not uniform worldwide and are not subject to the same temperature, pressure, and wind and atmospheric factors at the same places; and furthermore, that these variable spots are linked through a system of currents. As a result, not all ocean water is created equal, and taking some ice or water from one part of the globe and putting it somewhere else will not have the same result as taking some ice or water from one part of the glass and putting it in another part.

Also, for everyone's reference: the IPCC AR4, or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 4th report. This is considered the gold standard for climate change science. Everything written in here must be a) drawn from scientific literature that has already passed peer review, and b) put up for a second round of review and challenging by anyone who cares to challenge it, before it is published.

Ok, checked in the AR4 (2007) synthesis, and found the following on the 8th page:

The temperature increase is widespread over the globe and is
greater at higher northern latitudes (Figure 1.2). Average Arctic temperatures
have increased at almost twice the global average rate in
the past 100 years. Land regions have warmed faster than the oceans
(Figures 1.2 and 2.5). Observations since 1961 show that the average
temperature of the global ocean has increased to depths of at
least 3000m and that the ocean has been taking up over 80% of the
heat being added to the climate system. New analyses of balloonborne
and satellite measurements of lower- and mid-tropospheric
temperature show warming rates similar to those observed in surface
temperature. {WGI 3.2, 3.4, 5.2, SPM}

Increases in sea level are consistent with warming (Figure 1.1).
Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3]mm
per year over 1961 to 2003 and at an average rate of about 3.1 [2.4
to 3.8]mm per year from 1993 to 2003. Whether this faster rate for
1993 to 2003 reflects decadal variation or an increase in the longer-term
trend is unclear. Since 1993 thermal expansion of the oceans
has contributed about 57% of the sum of the estimated individual
contributions to the sea level rise, with decreases in glaciers and
ice caps contributing about 28% and losses from the polar ice sheets
contributing the remainder. From 1993 to 2003 the sum of these
climate contributions is consistent within uncertainties with the total
sea level rise that is directly observed. {WGI 4.6, 4.8, 5.5, SPM, Table

Summary: the ocean is warming and the sea levels are rising.

Is this human-caused? We can argue that part later if you like. But there you go, a publication as peer-reviewed as you can get is claiming that sea levels are rising.

You seem to have missed that the IPCC report is entirely based on that faulty reading from the Chinese tidal gague. You'll forgive me if I'm not willing to accept a report that's been based on something with faulty data that's been deliberately rigged to incorporate a "correction" for the 2mm rise in sea levels per year that was taken from land that's actually in subsidence. Scientists and peer reviewers can be wrong, but in this case there's something more going on when it can be clearly demonstrated from the raw observed data that there's no actual rise in sea levels at all.

I can't adjudicate between the IPCC and Morner, so ok, I'll retract that bit. Rest of the argument still stands. I'm not arguing that we're necessarily going to see coastal flooding or the disaster scenario of your choice. I'm arguing that it's not impossible because of the ocean's setup, and the ice cube argument, which purports to prove that it is impossible, is flawed as an analogy.

Well considering that the entire argument in favor of sea level rise is based on this IPCC report, and that report is fundamentally flawed, that more or less discredits any logical argument claiming sea levels are rising. The raw data says they simply haven't since 1961. Which supports the ice cube analogy.

Which raw data are you looking at?

And can we please just accept that the ocean isn't uniform and that's an empirical fact? We can argue all we like about what conclusions that entails, but water in one place does not have to be the same as water in another, and any science done without taking that into account is going to have flawed results.

The raw data that Morner was talking about on his page. The data where no 2mm per year rise in sea levels has been recorded.

I'm also not saying the ocean is uniform, you seem to be mistaking my acceptance of the ice cube argument as such, when I never said it was uniform. I only said the same principle applies. It's no different that with the glass of water if you should decide to pick it up and shake it. The water sloshes all over everywhere, but the pure fact remains that the displacement volume is unchanged. It's just damn hard to measure this until you set the glass down and wait.

In light of all this, it seems rather silly to me to try and reach any conclusions about how sea levels have risen, fallen, remained the same, or whatever as long as the ocean is sloshing around in its planetary glass. I'm afraid the only way to come to a real conclusion would be to stop the Earth's rotation, freeze the moon and sun in place, and wait. But I think we can all agree that the extinction of all life on Earth is a bit high a price to see if the ocean rose 2mm since last year, don't you?

Er... btw, is it just me or ha something happened to the font sizes here? *eyebrow*

Right. Ok. Dunno how or why but FF decided to mess with the font magnification without telling me.

If you don't like the ice cube in a glass because the ocean isn't uniform (it's surface is), try putting the ice cube in a large aquarium instead and feel free to even go so far as to add some "mountains" and "valleys" and sunken ships and such into the tank before you fill it to simulate the ocean's floor, I honestly believe you'll get the same results.

For me, when FF (or Opera) change magnication on me, I can usually accurately blame the cat. ;)

Yes, well. I don't let the cats in here. It's weird because it was only here, nowhere else. I thought some rogue code got in at first since I don't ever recall FF remembering mag settings on sites.

And your ice cube in an aquarium model probably fits this much better. Because that's about what icebergs are to the ocean.

*shrug* I just know who to blame when it does it to me. ;)

Thanks, I was trying to help Regina see that we're not discounting her declaration that oceans aren't uniform but still be realistic about the situation, if the oceans of the world weren't uniform at the surface we'd have much greater problems world-wide than what we already get, and we'd have a really hard time with the current notion of "sea level" which is used world-wide to measure elevations. ;)

Ohmigawd! At this rate, or even if you multiply it by ten times, I'll be underwater in 100,000 years! Someone help!

Many damaging effects of climate change are already basically irreversible, researchers declared Monday, warning that even if carbon emissions can somehow be halted temperatures around the globe will remain high until at least the year 3000.

More complete bullshit. They can't even predict our weather accurately 12 hours in advance. And they expect us to believe that they can make a prediction like this with any certainty whatsoever?

"People have imagined that if we stopped emitting carbon dioxide the climate would go back to normal in 100 years, 200 years; that's not true," climate researcher Susan Solomon said in a teleconference.

Right. They don't even know what "normal" is for the Earth. They also appear to be oblivious to the fact that CO2 levels can be demonstrated to have risen as a result of rising global temperatures. Not that temperatures are rising as a result of CO2 levels. But I guess the propagandists only want to scare people into throwing us all back to the stone age.

<< prev 1 next >>
Comments Closed
Comments for this entry have been closed.

Forgot Password?

 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31