General Climate Discussion

[Tac]

Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.

If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.


In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.

It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.

this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Tac
Take into account also that the bulk of the ice in the artic is over solid land.

If it melts it goes into the ocean, raising sea levels.


In any case, the real danger isnt that we'll lose a hundred feet of coastline, its the massive climate change the billions of tons of freshwater falling into the ocean and changing the salinity levels.

It kills the fish, it disrupts the flow the of the currents.. in fact if the gulf stream itself was to fail not only would most species in the ocean either die or significantly decrease in number, it would also alter the climate of the entire planet into an ice age like environment.

this all means starvation, conflict,etc .. a general decline in the # of humans in the planet. Which might not be a BAD thing but it'd be one very unpleasant world to live in while it happens.

I'm sorry at the artic, there is very little land, if any.

[AKH]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
I'm sorry at the artic, there is very little land, if any.

[clerick]

Originally posted by AKH

Thats a nice picture, but I'm sure what Rip was saying is that there is very little, if any, land beneath the ice cap.  In effect the ice is floating, unlike the antarctic which has land and even volcanoes underneath it.

[Ripsnort]

Exactly Clerick.

Thank you for proving my point, AKH. See that circle? That's the artic circle.

[AKH]

The Greenland ice sheet is in the Arctic.

[lazs2]

but tac..  the rate.. the actual rate of rise in the ocean is the same now as it was 150 years ago... not the 30 feet that gore or the alarmist first said...

Not the 20 feet by 2050 that they all said last year...

Not the 3 feet by 2050 that they said 6 months ago...

Probly not the 2 feet that they said last month but..

just like it always as been as far back as they can measure.... more like..1/10 of an inch a year.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

"Gore says that a sea-level rise of up to 6 m (20 ft) will be caused by melting of either West Antarctica or Greenland. Though Gore does not say that the sea-level rise will occur in the near future, the judge found that, in the context, it was clear that this is what he had meant, since he showed expensive graphical representations of the effect of his imagined 6 m (20 ft) sea-level rise on existing populations, and he quantified the numbers who would be displaced by the sea-level rise.

The IPCC says sea-level increases up to 7 m (23 ft) above today’s levels have happened naturally in the past climate, and would only be likely to happen again after several millennia. In the next 100 years, according to calculations based on figures in the IPCC’s 2007 report, these two ice sheets between them will add a little over 6 cm (2.5 inches) to sea level, not 6 m (this figure of 6 cm is 15% of the IPCC’s total central estimate of a 43 cm or 1 ft 5 in sea-level rise over the next century). Gore has accordingly exaggerated the official sea-level estimate by approaching 10,000 per cent.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC estimates a sea-level rise of “59 cm” by 2100. She fails to point out that this amounts to less than 2 ft, not the 20 ft imagined by Gore. She also fails to point out that this is the IPCC’s upper estimate, on its most extreme scenario. And she fails to state that the IPCC, faced with a stream of peer-reviewed articles stating that sea-level rise is not a threat, has reduced this upper estimate from 3 ft in 2001 to less than 2 ft (i.e. half the mean centennial sea-level rise that has occurred since the end of the last Ice Age 10,000 years ago) in 2007.

Ms. Kreider says the IPCC’s 2007 sea-level calculations excluded contributions from Greenland and West Antarctica because they could not be quantified. However, Table SPM1 of the 2007 report quantifies the contributions of these two ice-sheets to sea-level rise as representing about 15% of the total change."

lazs

[MORAY37]

Originally posted by lazs2
but moray.. manns hockey stick has been discredited by everyone.. soooo.. he lied.. he is compromised  no?    

YADDA YADDA YADDA

you guys are losing ground not gaining.  You may win but it won't be on the science it will be on bullying and shouting down the people who disagree.

lazs

Actually, if you knew what you were taking about, Mann's hockey stick was NOT discredited...it was pointed out there were statistical errors.  

"The panel published its report in 2006.[29] The report agreed that there were statistical shortcomings in the MBH (Mann Hockey Stick) analysis, but concluded that they were small in effect."

 The National Research Council publication constituted a "near-complete vindication for the work of Mann et al.";[32] Nature (journal) reported it as "Academy affirms hockey-stick graph."

I would like to point out... the Wegman report you trump so much as refuting the Mann report....

"The Wegman report has itself been criticized and supported on several contentious grounds:

The report was not subject to formal peer review [44] [45] However, at the hearing, Wegman lists 6 people that participated in his own peer review process and had no objection to the subcommittee submitting it for another one of their own.[46]

The result of fixing the alleged errors in the overall reconstruction does not change the general shape of the reconstruction. [47]

Similarly, studies that use completely different methodologies also yield very similar reconstructions,[47] although there is some overlap in proxies used.

The social network analysis is not based on meaningful criteria, does not prove a conflict of interest and did not apply at the time of the 1998 and 1999 publications. [46] Such a network of co-authorship is not unusual in narrowly defined areas of science.[48] During the hearing, Wegman defined the social network as peer reviewers that had "activly collaborated with him in writing research papers" and answered that none of his peer reviewers had.[46]
Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented "were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine."[44] However, in testimony when asked if he disputed the methodology conclusions of Wegman's report, he stated that "No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report." followed by the caveat the results could still be correct anyway "But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false."[46]

Mann has himself said that the report "uncritically parrots claims by two Canadians (an economist and a mineral-exploration consultant) that have already been refuted by several papers in the peer-reviewed literature inexplicably neglected by Barton's 'panel'. These claims were specifically dismissed by the National Academy in their report just weeks ago."[49]



You really need to smarten up before you say someone is "lying".

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by clerick
You don't quite have it right.  A pound of ice that displaces a pound of water will not float but will be suspended in the water.  Place it at any depth and it will stay where you placed it.

I think you need to get a glass of water and put a ice cube in it and see if you can suspend it without any part of it above the water.

Good luck.

Meanwhile google bouyancy and see what you come up with.

My engineering degree says that you will find that an ice cube floats (is bouyant) because it is of greater volume per unit weight than the water it displaces.  The a cubic foot of displaced water has a bouyancy capacity of 62.4 lbs.  62.4 lbs of ice will be appx 1.1 cubic feet.

0.1 cubic feet of ice will be above the waterline.  When the ice melts, the 62.4 lbs of water that was displaced will be filled with 62.4 lbs of water.

[lasersailor184]

Makes sense.

[Holden McGroin]

Originally posted by straffo
nope , think of the saturation.

Yup. I did think of that.

[AKIron]

Originally posted by lazs2

just like it always as been as far back as they can measure.... more like..1/10 of an inch a year.

lazs

Even only a foot a year is still like what, 100 feet in 10 years!

[Louis XVII]

But the US has just capitulated in Bali after years of GWB heel digging...

Sea levels? Well that's one consideration for climate change. Acidification of the oceans would be a key concern. I just watched a science documentary about climate change etc. There was a lake in Canada somewhere which had no currents, no circulation. And a small temperature increase in the water had led to the near extinction of one particular species of jellyfish there. The lesson here is that we can't just dump on organisms lower down the food chain. Man made CO2 output is now higher than at any time since man evolved, and the CO2 dissolvinginto the oceans is causing a lowering of their pH - acidification - which is adversely affecting the oceans' algae. Pfft you might say. Who cares about algae? Who cares about jellyfish? Hmm, the programme also went on to explain that those algae create about 70% of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere!

[Tigeress]

The Global Climate manipulates climate data

Tell me Mother Nature doesn't have a sense of irony and humor!

I think the Climate is having a go with everyone.

TIGERESS

[lasersailor184]

Originally posted by Louis XVII
But the US has just capitulated in Bali after years of GWB heel digging...

Sea levels? Well that's one consideration for climate change. Acidification of the oceans would be a key concern. I just watched a science documentary about climate change etc. There was a lake in Canada somewhere which had no currents, no circulation. And a small temperature increase in the water had led to the near extinction of one particular species of jellyfish there. The lesson here is that we can't just dump on organisms lower down the food chain. Man made CO2 output is now higher than at any time since man evolved, and the CO2 dissolvinginto the oceans is causing a lowering of their pH - acidification - which is adversely affecting the oceans' algae. Pfft you might say. Who cares about algae? Who cares about jellyfish? Hmm, the programme also went on to explain that those algae create about 70% of the oxygen in the earth's atmosphere!

Yes, because nothing in the history of the earth has EVER evolved, or EVER changed.

The earth is as it is now as it was 4 billion years ago.  With man running around talking on their cellphones, and exactly 36.7 thousand jellyfish in that one lake.