Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
First of all I dont think you can be an honest critic of anything if youve sided one way or another, then, if you have, youre truly shorting yourself available information, which either makes you work harder to find corraboration of this new info, if it pertains to your beliefs, or, you work harder to find exactly how this pertains to your beliefs, both ways.

If youve simply fallen into 1 of the 2 beliefs, and dont challenge it, to me, it has to be pure fact, and those gray areas, require the scepticism even so. But youre still open to new infos. Its how we grow and learn, and I find it the wisest form of learning, regardless of what others say or think, and knowing and prscticing this POV from the beginning saves alot of this misunderstanding.

Just as you find Al Gore sceptical with his knowledge of GW, I too find alot of scientists with sceptical conclusions, such as I pointed out. Theres more info on his early claims, verifying what he actually means and has said, and he basically thru Gore under the bus.
So, Im sceptical of both now, and have pointed out previously the losseness of interpretations thruout alot of findings here, and the flip flop activity, where the exact opposite has been claimed previously, and I find no hard facts either way.

Someone so rogue as Al Gore gives me very little confidence in GW, and theres many that adhere to it that I also find on the wrong side of the fence. Similar to the UN putting certain countries on the security council, it discounts their authority, much like the Nobel Peace Prize commitee, who chose Gore.

To me, all these people have run in the same circles for awile now, and are embraced by hollywood, the media etc, and misrepresent the majority, and sometimes common sense as well.

If other , say the gentlemen from MIT came aboard, to me, itd have more impact, and hopefully those gentlemen have open minds as well.

As for the sea ice, he makes 2 claims, i1 is possible, the other, no.
If currents of water reach the edge of the sea ice, and theyre overall warmer from whatever source/reason, itll have direct effects on the edges of the sea ice, which would be fine, but he goes on here, and talks about his imaging processes which are supposedly much superior than the EU's, or the UK in particular. He claims the ice is thinning, but heres the problem, you dont have a current of such sorts with 2 differing temps running under ice, its impossible.
Its like hitting a wall. If hurricanes in our atnosphere didnt have the feeding of warmed surface temp water to pass over, to maintain or pick up strength, they die out, same also for currents under ice, and since there isnt any feeders to be had, the wall would become thincker, having cooled the incoming warmer waters, thus deadening the currents flow. Thats where his agressive numbers fail, and to me, he shouldnt be a voice, mucj like Al Gore, Nobel, hollywood et al.

Using your own words, you said sea ice reductions werent as bad, or so great the last 2 years, whereas its actually grown, so again, this is exactly to my point.
Using worse case, ignoring other things, and we are supposed to go all in?
Let me ask this, since I dont seem to have the right link, anytime during the 70s thru 2007 has the sea ice grown? And, if so, how is that used in the GW projections? Or are they at all?
To say now, that those longer ranged forecasts included this, and is why itll take longer, what if it keeps happening? Theres no reason for it to, at all, if we take into consideration what GW is saying, certainly not 2 years in a row, and certainly not 3 or more, and if their calculations are based with the absence of growth, or limited, 2 years running seems to go outside the data points, and keep in mind, Im giving you 2007, and will ask for just 2 years here.
How can CO2 allow for this? Is it because we really dont know, or have near the grasp required to make facts yet? And then to even have gray areas as well?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091110141842.htm
New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.


Notice the word balance here? In that way is the same as Im using it.

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent.


So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."

Where Im coming from


Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

Very contradictory


The beauty of balance

"Abstract. The presence of phytoplankton in the
ocean modies the penetration of light and impacts the
physical properties of the upper water column. We quantify
these impacts and the feedbacks on phytoplankton
biomass for the global ocean using an Ocean General
Circulation Model coupled to a state-of-the-art ocean
biogeochemistry model. The presence of phytoplankton
amplies the seasonal cycle of temperature, mixed layer
depth and ice cover by roughly 10%. At mid and high latitudes,
surface temperature warms by 0.1 to 1.5 C and
sub-surface temperature cools by 0.1 to 0.5 C in spring
and summer; in autumn and winter, surface and subsurface
waters are mixed and surface temperature cools
by 0.1 to 0.3 C. In the tropical oceans, the presence of
phytoplankton indirectly cools the ocean surface by ca 0.3
C due to the intensication of the upwelling. The mixed
layer straties by 4 to 30 m everywhere except at high
latitudes. At high latitudes, the sea-ice cover is reduced
by up to 6 % in summer and increased by 2 % in winter,
leading to further feedbacks on vertical mixing and heat

uxes. The physical changes drive a positive feedback
with phytoplankton biomass, which increases by 4-12 %
and further amplies the initial physical perturbations,
in particular at high latitudes."
http://luv.dkrz.de/publications_2003/pub_47_104.pdf

As I mentioned earlier, when a body of water turns over, the temps do as well, and a mixing occurs. Below the thrmocline, the oxygen is somewhat depleted, and theres a layer of cooling, as phyto plankton amongst warn water fishes cant exist in this element because of the low oxygen levels.
Now, whats interesting here, and what Id hinted at earlier with the clouds, even tho they act like a greenhouse below, they do the opposite above out to space, making things colder.
So too we find that Phyto Plankton does the same. As it absorbs the suns rays, heat the surface waters, it blooms, and prevents sunlight from reaching deeper in the sea, thus making it colder, same with the northern seas, except we have a turn over , and the melted ice lowers the surface temps, which sink, thus lowering the lower depths in temps, a natural turnover as well, with the increase of Phyto Plankton creating a thermal barrier for the heat , keeping it at the surface, and again, blooming Phyto Plankton acting as an insulator, and the deeper waters cool even more.
In fall, the natural turnover happens, as the surface waters become colder than the deeper water abd sinks, and is why the temps in the summer and spring, the deeper water is actually getting colder, as its reached its mean temps over winter.

Now, so far, it would seem to me, as Im barely eduacated in these matters, they havnt either included this natural model, have severely underestimated it, or have agressively over ridden it, and is why I chose this example for my scepticism
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


I am open to a lot of new information, just like with this discussion. I always knew it was happening, but this thread has shown me the evidence for it, and boy there's a lot of evidence. I have sided, but that was clear from the start, whereas you said you weren't on either side earlier, then went 'I'm sceptical' which makes you a... sceptic. So your first point is valid for you as well, and the way you refuted evidence earlier makes it sure looks like you're 'shorting yourself [of] available information'.

I don't find Al Gore sceptical, I don't like him, and you've only found a handful of scientists with sceptical stances, which is far from a lot, so the consensus remains.

What member of The UN Security Council has 'discounted' their authority? I really don't want to go further of track, but you led me to thisquesiotn - what member of it offends you so?

Who from MIT? And why would it have more impact coming from MIT than any other high-ranking University?

There are currents in the Arctic Ocean, the inward one is the Norwegian Current - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Current – which is warmer than the other waters of the Arctic Ocean. Ice is thinning, you can use satellite measurements among other things to determine that - http://nsidc.org/news/press/20091005_minimumpr.html . It says that the thickness of the ice decreased by 0.68m between 2004 and 2008, so, far from being impossible, it's happening.

I never said sea ice reductions weren't as bad, I actually said Sea Ice increased in annual terms, so your point is null and void if you don't READ THE POST. Sea Ice has grown on occasion between 1970 and 2007, but the trend is downwards, even if you forgo the collapses of 2005 and 2007 - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Seaice-1870-part-2009.png . I'm not privy to the variables used in models, so I don't know, but I'm sure that they don't try to use the yearly data, but rather the trends over a couple of decades.

If you look at the graph you will see 3 years of increased ice cover in the mid-1980s before it began to drop again, so this decrease and increase has happened in the past. The increase is going to have to continue for about another decade to return to pre-1970 levels, which will be going some, but if it continues for a couple more years then perhaps the trend needs to be revised.

CO2 allows for a reduction in sea ice because it warms the atmosphere, it's as simple as that. Deeper in you get a possible shifting of ocean currents around the Arctic and a reduction in the Arctic albedo due to lack of ice, which warms the area further.

I do notice the word balance here, but there is a property of gas-solute exchange called dynamic equilibrium which means that the 'balance' is always changing, so it's never really balanced.

Thermocline is a wonderful thing to discuss if we were talking about marine biology. I've read your paragraph on it, and don't forget you brought the matter up, but I fail to see its relevance with Global Warming. Oceanic heat measurements are always from the surface so they aren't effected by this layering. If mean temps occur in winter any cooling has to be reversed. I doubt mean temps are reached in winter when it's claimed that the deeper water is colder in summer and spring.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
skepticism, scepticism
a personal disposition toward doubt or incredulity of facts, persons, or institutions
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scepticism

A healthy dose is a good thing sometimes, and as Ive pointed out it goes both ways, as I quoted Knorr saying it wasnt necessarily a good thing that the CO2 was being absorbed naturally, which to me is the proper advancement, and not to end a dispute, but to further our knowledge.

"So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."

So, in my mind, Dr Knorr has retained his right to scepticism, as he wants to get to the bottom of this, and hasnt sided

The UN has placed any current member to its security council, as they change all the time, and some may be somewhat curious choices, like those countries supporting terrorism, or dictatorships etc. The UN has worked hard to have a greater voice than it deserves in many matter, climate control is one, or medicines/disease etc.
The top in those fields dont go to the UN, and never have nor will, but remain at home, or in a leading country for further advancement on the problem/cure.
They get too much credit, being as they are second rate, considering what I just said, but that is a personal POV, so its not pertinent at all, since the UN backs alot of things, but the work is done elsewheres.

If the ice is permanent, then the ice would supposedly thin, but not from the bottom, unless we remove previous years snowfall from the numbers,
Now looking here
http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/norwegian.html
its easy to see that this current never reaches the sea ice in question, and point out, from your link, the ice loss is elsewheres anyhow. Nowhere nears the Norwegian area, and only close to Greenland on its eastern shore.


The Norwegian current has an offshore branch and a coastal component that hugs the coast of Norway.

OK, my using balance is very apropro, since adding more CO2 wouldnt mean anything if it didnt upset the balance we had, isnt that so? I mean, we are trying to find a balance here over time, and whats the mean and whats not. And if its out of balance, whats caused it? If the ice ebbs and flows, if the temps ebbs and flows, and there is no balance, there cant be a norm can there? And if there cant be a norm, then all this CO2 added to the atmosphere is surely hogslop, since itll happen anyways at some point, and adding it proves neither here nor there. Since it still doesnt resolve the differences of what we should considered the norm vs an imbalanced scenario.
So, any "normal" numbers needs be thrown out, since there is no norm, or balanced, and for all we know, its getting colder from CO2.

"2. The balance of elements in ocean water, which is assumed to be constant, i.e. influx and removal of elements occurs at the same rate. Influxes include river water, elements released from sediment pore fluid, and melting ice. Reaction between sea water and rocks is probably insignificant. The removal of elements from sea water occurs by precipitation of chemical sediments, ion exchange, and the burial of pore fluids.

3. The relation between the input and output of a glacier. Input (accumulation) is dominated by snow precipitation and output (ablation) by surface melting. The difference between accumulation and ablation for a glacier over a year is the net (mass) balance. A positive net balance implies that a glacier is growing; a negative net balance that it is shrinking; and a zero net balance that it is stable."
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O13-massbalance.html

As for the thermocline, I mention it as a natural barrier, hwere the waters temps change, creating a wall, where the oxygen levels are lower, and how its turns over during late fall.
While this makes life great in oceans and lakes, it was more to the point of my previous post, which shows the deeper waters get colder in the spring and summer, not the other way around, and as the bloom occurs, it acts as a insulator, furthering this cooling process. Point being, the warmer the surface waters get, the cooler the deeper waters are, and effects currents as to their temps, and unless theres a huge bio loss of plankton, this cant be changed, whther theres warmer atmospheric temps or not, since one feds the other, or a balance is achieved, and so too with the clouds making it warmer on the surface, its colder than usual above them, Ive said this several times now, and if you have credible linkls to show this isnt so, let me see them.
The deep water temps reach 39F, as thats water at its heaviest, any wamer or colder, its lighter, and remains above, so, if water at 34 degrees from melting ice sinks into warner water of say 37 F. And thus, the deeper water cools from spring/summer melt of the ice.
Thus waters uniqueness in these terms, as it doesnt actually change form, nor can you use it as a hammer. But I didnt want to have to go all the ways around, but there it is.

MIT is respected because its has the most acredation in manys eyes. And yes, they too are susceptible as anyone else wanting attention, tho money isnt a driving point for them, but noteriety isnt out of the question, but neverthe less, its not good to have Profs from MIT speaking out against GW.

I havnt brought up other links, names etc that goes past the acceptable cristicisms on the non GW side only because theyve been not allowed to speak, where i had an earlier link, theyre too wack, or, they arent speaking at the top conferences of science.
Theyve not been allowed. So, having a few MIT profs may change this, and finally get the attention of the opposing side, so I can be sceptical of thweir findings as well, but you cant say its been fair, and the best hasnt stepped forwards, yet,
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


A healthy dose is good sometimes, but I merely said you were on the side of the sceptics. You also appeared to be quite denialist earlier on, refuting data and trends, so I would seem you are leaning towards the deniers, rather than the middle ground of accepting data (from both sides).

I think that of all things the UN should have the loudest voice, considering that it composes of most of the countries on Earth. It deserves the loudest voice simply for that. Add to the fact that taking away its power could make it become another League of Nations, whose inactions some feel contributed to the Second World War, and that it represents most of the population on Earth and you see why it deserves the say that it does. I'll ask again, what country do you not like that is on the security council?

The sea ice on the North Pole isn't permanent, some sea ice is old, perhaps a decade or so old, but not permanent as it flows of rotates with currents and the seasons, melting once it reaches warmer temperatures.

Maybe you should read the text that go with the pictures before jumping to that conclusion about the Norwegian Current - 'An important aspect of the Norwegian Current is its effect on the ice cover in the Barents Sea. Compared with the cold and fresh Arctic water, the waters of the Norwegian Current are relatively warm and saline. The exchange of heat between these two water masses is enhanced during years with a positive NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) pattern (Dickson et al. 1996, Venegas and Mysak 2000). Under these conditions, the transport of heat by the Norwegian Current into the Arctic region is stronger than normal. When the NAO is negative, Atlantic waters do not penetrate so far north, and ice is easily formed and maintained in the Barents Sea.' That sure looks like it's saying that ice cover is effected by this current, in positive NAO years at least.

'Its getting colder from CO2' – And foolish (believe me I considered stronger words) statement of the day goes to... You see where this is going. We have understood the properties of CO2 for over 100 years, and those properties show that it warms the atmosphere. Its major absorption peaks lie within the infrared range of the spectrum, so sunlight that would have bounced of the Earth and back into space is instead absorbed by CO2 and transferred into the atmosphere. Adding more CO2 upsets the imbalance, the cycle, the geological state of affairs. Just because there is imbalance doesn't mean that normality doesn't exist, normality is just a mean of something that happens. I also direct you to my earlier point that we can't sit back just because nature could do worse.

You point about mass balance is wonderful but a) that's mass balance, not balance, and b) balance should be balanced on its own, without external forces constantly changing it. Over a year net in could equal net out, but that doesn't imply balance in the system, the surface melts and snow falls at different rates at different times of the year, so there is imbalance. You may see balance on a large time scale but at daily or weekly time scales there won't be balance. The creation of the Universe means that there was imbalance, the fact that it's got stuff in it means it's imbalanced, the fact that galaxies have formed means there is imbalance, the way stars produce energy means that there is imbalance etc.

You haven't said several times that it's colder than usual above clouds. We have agreed that clouds act as an insulator at night, but NASA feels that cloud actually cool the atmosphere - http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Clouds/ .

Your analysis of the descent of water is fundamentally flawed. If you say that 39 F is the peak density for water then 34 F water will be less dense than 37 F so the 37 F water would sink, not the other way around.

Water does change its form - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice#Phases , these plus liquid and gas, and you can make a hammer out of ice. Whether it would be any good at it is up for debate (I vote rubbish), but you can craft ice into a hammer.

Which MIT professor is speaking out against Global Warming?

It's not that they are not 'speaking at the top conferences of science' it's because Monckton (I assume you are talking about him) has not got any training in science, heck, I'm probably better qualified to speak about science than he is. Many others are qualified, but the CONSENSUS remains, that is that global warming is happening and that it is caused by human activities.

Maybe no MIT professors have spoken out against this because they believe it's happening. Just a possibility.
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
Actually, ice tends to melt from the bottom and top simultaneously. As surface ice melts, it pools up and creates a lensing effect, that amplifies radiation. These pools drill holes into the ice, until the bottom is reached. At this point warmer water causes melting to occur at the bottom, too. This is why glaciers can drift around on land, because the bottom has liquid. Once the liquid finds a route to exit the ice, it proceeds to drain violently, breaking up ice, and even causing large chunks to collapse. This is why large break-offs occur.

Large break-offs like the ones that have occurred in recent history are clear signs that there is not only enough warmth to thaw surface ice, but there is enough radiation to drill a hole into the ice in a short period of time. Once these pools begin to form, there is only one possible outcome. With only a decrease in solar radiation, GHE seems to be the only logical culprit.

co2 causes surrounding h2o to heat up, which tends to increase the amount of h2o, which tends to amplify the green house effect. Atmospheric co2 cannot possibly lead to a colder climate.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I mixed 2 things together with my water, heheh no it wasnt gin and tonic either heheh.
I was showing the uniqueness of water by its densities found in fresh water, where we see this solution to keeps lakes from freezing solid, keeping for a diverse ecology thruout.
As for my sea ice comments and their temps compared to density, no, you are mistaken by my mixing the 2, fresh and salt water, where if you check, salt water is heavier due to the salt itself, and remains more dense at lower temps, thus the insulated waters under the ice of 37F sees the heavier 34F water pass thru it and cool it, thus causing the currents FROM the arctic, and not the other way around.
This convection causes these currents, and effects other currents more than the other ways around, especially ones that are 600 miles away, heading away from the surface ice.

As to the lensing effect, its also known as honeycombing, and it isnt from currents, but from solar radiation. So, this GW fellow needs some basics on how it all works, and neednt be quoted or throw Al Gore under the bus, as I do have links, and a link to a brochure quoting him, and he doesnt deny it in the 1 link I gave.
So, was it sceptical to bring this forwards? Or, was it corrcet thinking? If this thinking isnt applied alllll the way down the line, being as important 1 way or the other, whether this is truly happening, but for sure, they want our money, it had better be spot on, and I say, being sceptical is a good thing, or would you rather not know the dr was lying, and Al Gore was once again overstating what he knows lil of, and reflects overall on this whole subject, where theres holes aplenty, to let the light shine thru, and yet, to claim scepticism shouldnt be allowed is only furthering this whole thing
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
Jayedee - :hello: - Do you even read people's posts? Do you have any critical thought process in your brain, if you do? No? That's because your an idiot.

The process I described has nothing to do with honeycombing. Knowing that is one way I'm smarter than you are.

When water pools on the surface of ice, the ice's capacity to reflect radiation to space is reduced. Furthermore, the water forms AN OPTICAL LENS THAT PROCEEDS TO MELT ICE BENEATH. This effect bores an entire lake into the ice, which only proceeds to get larger and deeper. Eventually when the lake breaks through the bottom or side of the ice, it drains, violently, causing ice to collapse and break off. This effect can happen on different sclaes. A droplet of water forms a lens.

No, I'm not going to linky you, and I know that makes steam come out of your giant dumbo ears. :cry:
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
You might take a trip to a local govornment-run science facility ( they are publicly open on certain days). Maybe the NSO. Go on the tour for 10$. Ask if global warming is real. See what they say.

You can get an answer from the mouth of a real life scientist or student ( oh, awe).

Someone in the culture and community of science - gee, it sounds like somthing fun to do.

http://www.nso.edu/visitors.html
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
And you might want to curb your enthusiasm here. Because I remain sceptical of both sides you lose. Id suggest better repoire from here on in TY, if you demand any respect, and umm your opinions and no links. The melting ice melts from solar and water, and does what to the ice?

"This first shows up in black ice as sheets and strings of bubbles in the ice along the grain boundaries. The ice becomes gray from the bubbles after a while. After an extended period of heating by the sun the grain boundaries will melt all the way to the bottom of the ice, forming many tiny drain holes. This is evident when all the puddles disappear from the ice surface of thawing ice.

When water ice is exposed to prolonged sun at above freezing temperatures it thaws into either honeycombed ice or, if the ice grains are larger, into interlocked grains. In the latter stages of the thawing process there is a big difference in the weight bearing ability of these two grain structures."
http://www.idniyra.org/articles/ice_grain.htm

So, I agree with you and you attack me? OK, I said its also called honeycombing, is that a problem? Before you start disrespecting people, and trash them, its good to come in with links, as well as reading my posts and getting them right.
I agree, yes solar radiation causes ice to melt, I disagree that it doesnt honeycomb it, as my link shows it does.
So, play nice, learn a lil etiquette, and contribute more.

This is a typical response on this issue, allowing for no middle ground til we find out more.
This is why we dont have all the infos we need, because of division, name calling, belittling etc, as the emails showed.
Its time to enter all infos into these thoughts to come to a more true solution, and not wander into forced seperatism
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Salt water is slightly more dense due to the salt ions, but the Ice on the surface is formed by it. This means that the density characteristics of water remain (possibly shifted due to the salt ions) so the 34F water will be lighter than the 37F water. If currents flow from the Arctic what does than tell you? Tell you what, I'll show you; you must have an office fan somewhere, turn it on. You can feel the flow of fluid (air) coming from it at the front, obviously that's how they are designed. Now move your hand around the back of it. On this side you can feel a force from the flow pulling you towards the fan. This tells us that to have a flow coming out you need a flow coming in, because the particles coming out need to be replaced by those coming in. I redirect you to the site which gave you your pictures a few posts earlier - http://oceancurrents.rsmas.miami.edu/atlantic/norwegian.html – this says, 'An important aspect of the Norwegian Current is its effect on the ice cover in the Barents Sea'. Seems to me that these people are saying that ice cover is effected by this current, and that this current flows into the Arctic region. And from ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Ocean#Water_flow ) - 'The greatest inflow of water comes from the Atlantic by way of the Norwegian Current, which then flows along the Eurasian coast.'.

Which 'global warming fellow' needs to learn some basics?

Scepticism should be allowed, but then *ahem* sceptics like you who come along and refute perfectly legitimate data. That's the issue with the naming of people against global warming, as scepticism is an important part of science, but many 'sceptics' do not want to progress this debate, just to stop it. Another option is call them deniers, but this raises comparisons to Holocaust deniers (morons - so sort of similar). I think deniers fit well. With what will happen to select groups of people around the world if we get really warm.

This is why we dont have all the infos we need, because of division, name calling, belittling etc, as the emails showed
Do you really want to know what the e-mails contained. I'll tell you. They contained the personal conversation between scientists, the sort of conversations that you might have when you say 'i don't like him/her' with your friends. The reason that names came up was the discussion of whether the data should be released to certain people, people who in the past have been aggressive, have lied, and are unlikely to do anything with the data. Far from these hackers being lauded as wonderful people whom showed the truth, a truth that has been transformed by deniers into a lie or something to grab onto as 'evidence', the hackers should be prosecuted for hacking these accounts, as with any hacking of personal information.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
The density of water is dependent on the dissolved salt content as well as the temperature of the water. Ice still floats in the oceans, otherwise they would freeze from the bottom up. However, the salt content of oceans lowers the freezing point by about 2 °C and lowers the temperature of the density maximum of water to the freezing point. That is why, in ocean water, the downward convection of colder water is not blocked by an expansion of water as it becomes colder near the freezing point. The oceans' cold water near the freezing point continues to sink.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Properties_of_water#Density_of_saltwater_and_ice

So, water continues to sink from the surface, as I said.


Look at the location of Norway, and its direction
Now, look at the current flows


You can see it heading towards eurasia, going close to the arctic ocean, and sometimes as they said, flowing into it directly
Now, look at where the ice is melting



The melting ice is 1000 miles away amd even further where the nelting ice is close to the eurasian coastline, protected by islands..


Notice how it doesnt effect minimal ice coverage, in both pics, including ice loss as to the location and amount. Its in the wrong place, the ice isnt being effected there, the claim is bogus, and just another reason to be sceptical.

Again, if its currents then its the normal arctic currents, not the Norwegian current, and if the ice is thinning, having more CO2 in the air would slow the effects of the solar melting as I said earlier.
This is plain to see. This guy made huge claims, followed later by Al Gore, and much like an end of the world plot, as the time drew near, he threw Gore under the bus, and denied everything.
I cant see why people dont check these things out before signing up
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Your point on vertical convection is understood and accepted.

I'm just saying what the websites said about the Norwegian Current. You claimed that there was only an outwards current, which is ridiculous. I also can't see any scale on your pictures to represent 1000 miles.

'The claim is bogus' – this 'bogus claim' is from a site you brought up. So it's fine if it agrees with you, but bogus if it doesn't?

The ice is effected, you own image proves this. You see a part of the Norwegian current going northward, along the west coast of Svalbard, and reaching the ice pack at both 'maximum' and 'minimum'. The main part of the current reaches the 'maximum' level of sea ice and also spreads around into the Barents Sea, which is shown as in the 'maximum' area of ice cover.

You have never made any mention of CO2 effecting 'solar melting' (what ever the heck solar melting is). If you are suggesting that an increase in CO2 concentration would actually decrease the melt rate of sea ice then you are being absurd. I'll repeat. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Increased concentration of a greenhouse gas will warm the atmosphere it is in. The warmer the atmosphere the warmer the planet. The warmer the planet the lower the ice levels. 'Solar melting'? As in thermal radiation? This will increase, and not from an increase in the Suns output but from the photons that would have bounced into space after striking the surface of Earth instead being absorbed and returned to the atmosphere by particles like CO2, Methane, Water vapour etc.

The world won't end, but human civilisation is likely to if we don't change.
 

nickak2003

Distinguished
Jan 4, 2010
21
0
18,510
0
Jaydee, you do a great job of posting links and quoting stuff, but you have the common problem of not being able to connect dots.
You need to stop loving linkys so much and try out your own brain.

You still either fail to understand my previous posts, or you choose to ignore them.

I'm going to try this out one more time:
Pools are growing rapidly and causing break-offs. Some pools grow year round. Pools are forming not simply because it's slightly warmer. They are forming and growing rapidly because they are being exposed to increased radiation. The increase in radiation is not from the sun, it's from the Green House Effect.



Can you list all of the evidence/facts that have been presented, followed by the evidence you would like to be accepted instead?
Don't want to do that? Summary is a good tool for understanding stuff, especially in threads/debates. Try it out.

I'm not going to do it for you, but I think the effect will be something like this:

*jaydee is in denial
*jaydee is ignorant
*jaydee is ignorant and/or sort of dumb
*etc

Try it out, you could learn something.
 

rnalvine

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
30
0
18,530
0
^ A prime example of why societal skepticism on "consensus" for AGW is splintering. The new scientific culture of "McCarthyism" only serves to polarize both sides into deeper and more intractible viewpoints that leave them closed off to conflicting or inconsistent information.

Such was certainly evident in the East Anglia CRU emails that were released on the interent by a hacker (who should be prosecuted as would any other hacker charged with a similar offense). From outright hostility to other skeptical scientists, to considerations of blocking scientific journals from publishing unfavorable research via duress, to utilizing "tricks" to hide unfavorable outcomes, the emails quite clearly illustrate the aforesaid version of "McCarthyism".

Peruse the emails at your leisure:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/index.php


Further to aver that the increased radiation is not from the sun, but rather, from the Greenhouse Effect is to ignore a well-established and long-recognized pattern of variable solar output. The natural cycles of the sun cause it to put out, on average, more or less radiation over multi-year behavorial cycles. Such affect planets other than our own (re: melting of martian polar ice). To say that increased solar radiation can be insulated, and thus its effects compounded by the Greenhouse effect might be slightly more accurate.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
rnalvine, so youre saying theres increased solar radiation? Ive heard about this, but havnt looked at it, and that you for seeing my point, as some here seem to think they cant have consequences at least here on Toms, for being rude and or childish.

The amount of radiation never increases on its own, whether trapped or not, to my understanding, so once used, its gone.

As for my use of links, Im not sure theres a better way is there? And its others failures to not see my connections, and cavalierly say so.
Ice wont just melt away from greenhouse effect, what goes in is used and is gone, and if anything, it slows the process, since the pooling as directly effected, and Ive seen no mention of greenhouse radiation and its effects on pooling on ice.
Links would be nice to have.

As far as being accepted, I could give a rip, since myt position is more a common Joe, and doesnt require a lofty respect nor a cavalier attitude .
I dont ascribe to a "group" mentality, and it seems its what Im fighting here, and only points to a weakness where a man cant and or shouldnt stand on his own.
I stand alone regardless on this issue simply because as Ive said, I havnt signed up to either side, and the increased solar radiation theory, where Id read that other planets were also getting warmer,well Id need to look into that, as Im sceptical, even tho it goes in to the herd mentality of either side, for or against.
I encourage those to think for themselves on this issue, and never should that be a bad thing, regardless, and if I get 1 more insult from you nickak, Im sure I can find someone to correct your wording. And before you go into me being a bully, Ive been cordial til now, but wont hesitate to use the ToS rules, which I suggest you read, so that here at least, we can have a decent exchange of ideas, unlike elsewheres.

As for the bogus lies and infos, I said I have many more links where he said in 2-3 years, and times up, going back to 2007 and even before. To deny it now, and then have Al Gore simply to repeat it, and this in a conversation from Gores recollection , with proofs out there shows how fickle these "facts" are.
If he changed his mind,wants to throw someone under a bus, and go against his previous staements, fine, but to deny them is a lie.
Independent thought is called for, as surely we have enough aligned people on the appropraite sides, and just seeing some of the reaction here shows how far some will go for their "side".
Now all Ill need is some bogus recants from the GW deniers for me to draw sceptical conclusions from, and be attacked from that side, and then itd be clear.

Its truly a shame and a sham that this cant be properly discussed, and is what my whole thrust is about here, and yes, I can grasp the theories, and havnt a problem with them. More to the point is, , I see the closed mindedness of those whove chosen their sides.
It hasnt all been negatives and finger pointing and insults, and for those decent responses, Im thankful, as Ive learned a bit from those particular exchanges, and reached back in to things not thought of for awhile.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Ice will melt away from a greenhouse effect (not all at once mind). An increase in greenhouse gases won't slow the melting process, greenhouse gas equals more heat equals higher temperature at poles equals more ice melted, it's as simple as that.

I know you have said that you haven't chosen sides, but you have refuted a lot of data which doesn't bode that well for your 'neutral ground' claim.

The solar radiation theory is interesting, but it's effect limited. The variance over the short-term (11-year cycle) is about 1 W per square metre (+/-0.5W), compared to the mean output of about 1366W/(m*m) it's a very small figure. The long-term cycles may be more effective but unlike with temperature and CO2 they are quite hard to decipher. Looking at recent trends we can see that sunspot activity (thought to be responsible for the 11 year cycle) doesn't increase whilst CO2 and temperature do - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg – this shows an decrease in the number of sunspots (at 1980) but temperature keeps increasing. At 1960 we see an increase in Sunspots but no increase in temperature, in fact it kept increasing even when temperatures were dropping post-war. The correlation between them seems non-existent.

I thought we left Gore behind regarding his '2-3 year' comment. I don't particularly like him, and he should never have said 2-3 years, it wasn't what the consensus thought at the time or even now, he used scare tactics like the deniers do and that was wrong.
 

rnalvine

Distinguished
Sep 29, 2009
30
0
18,530
0
The solar output cycles are tied to sunspot quantity, iirc. If you look at temp records for even the last 100 years you can observe effects of these ~30ish year cycles. They do not account for the entirety of the warming seen over the past century, but they do play their part when looking at a small window. Further, they may help explain the drastic increase in temps during the 80's and 90's and the slight cooling trend we've experienced in the past decade.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.svg

Beyond these 30ish year sun cycles there seems to be some wider pattern of multi-centrury warming & cooling that exists independent of man's activities.

The 'Medieval Warm Period' (800-1200) and 'little ice age' (1400-1800) are examples of this sort of phenomenon. There is evidence of agriculture in Greenland in areas where glaciers are now retreating that is believed to have dated from the viking settlements of the MWP. There is also speculation that during the summers there was a large enough retreat of arctic ice to allow for sailing a Northern Passage over North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

I am not aware of any explanation that quite accounts for this multi-century cycle - or even whether it happens with any sort of repeatable/predictable pattern that should be considered a "cycle". But, if so, we might now be in another of the (cyclical?) multi-century "warm" periods, which may then also be a contributing factor to the warming that has been observed over the last century.

One activity of man that is often overlooked with respect to the GW scenario is deforestation. Its interesting that the reported increases in parts/million CO2 observations have coindided with substantial deforestation in many regions of the globe. Obviously, vegetation consumes CO2 and produces O2. With less vegetation, there is less natural "cleansing" of CO2. But this factor is often ignored when it comes to discussions of CO2 reduction (focusing instead almost solely on fossil fuel regulation).

What's more when it comes to Greenhouse gases (those that insulate heat in the atmosphere), there are many that are much more insulative than CO2. Methane, for instance, is something like 17 times more insulative.

Also: Ive seen speculation that ozone levels (and resultant UV radiation) may also play a role in the recent warming trend. As the ozone layer thinned (and disappeared over the poles), a process for which we don't have long standing records, but which indicate substantial loss in ozone over the past 50 years, the warming trend has grown more pronounced.

Another interesting fact is that despite warming/melting in some areas, the Antartic Ice sheet has been thickening inland such that the net change in total ice mass is minimal. A fact that may substantially alter "chicken little" scenarios that speculate rampant coastal flooding as a result of AGW.

I could go on and on.

The long and short of this is that the puzzle contains a great many more pieces that what is often discussed in the context of GW and its probable causes. At best, the activities of man are only one factor of many in the overall mosiac. How big a piece is open to debate and analysis -> which is exactly what people on both sides of the politicized issue want to avoid.
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Last decade there wasn't a cooling trend, there was a continuation of the warming trend that started in the late 1970s - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png . (heck even your picture shows it)

Deforestation plays a part in this, as you point out about life acting as a sink for CO2, but we can't replant all the trees we have removed (much as I'd love to) because some land is agriculturally viable and much of the rainforest that was clear can't be replanted because the soil is no longer able support a rainforest. The reason that CO2 is the focus of cuts needed is that Methane comprises of a much smaller proportion of the atmosphere compared to CO2. Methane is a lot more potent than CO2, but the release of it probably hasn't been on the scale of CO2 (over 500,000Mt released) or even 1/17th of that.

The IPCC feel that the ozone depletion have caused a cooling effect, 'the IPCC [conclude] that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system" of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter (W/m²).' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_hole#Ozone_depletion_and_global_warming ).

The Antarctic Ice sheet has actually seen a change in its mass according to NASA data ( http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-03/uoca-ais022806.php ) - 'The team used measurements taken with the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, or GRACE, to conclude the Antarctic ice sheet is losing up to 36 cubic miles of ice, or 152 cubic kilometers, annually. By comparison, the city of Los Angeles uses about 1 cubic mile of fresh water annually.'
Relating to what we've discussed previously on this thread, the fact that this seems a lower relative value is because the Southern hemisphere has increased in temperature at a slower rate than the Northern. At the other pole the Greenland Ice Sheet lost 1500 cubic kilometres of ice between 2000 and 2008.

And whilst you could go on and on you may find that much of what you go on and on about has already been discussed on here.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
The release of the huge ice shelves goes against the cooler southern hemisphere tho, as something is surely setting this activity off.

Both sides need to be addressed AFAIC, and none dismissed, as all are contributors, regardless of how important it is. To take up a flag of only 1 component of all this is, IMHO, too narrow a scope, and since we should have the ability to grasp the lasger picture, actually find its greatest culprit.

I agree, Al Gore stinks, always has

Ive heard all points, and have argued against most. One thing, if the insulating effect is insulating the heat in, wheres the heat coming from on the ice? Or, if its radiating heat, its only the heat absorbed by the sun, and water has a higher absorbtion rate than CO2 per solar radiation. So, wheres the extra heat? Im sure Im missing something here....

As for it being warmer back then, explain this graph?


To exxplain my question better, if you take a line from 1880 to the last date on the graph, its a faily consistent rise overall, at a given angle, and micromanaging the temps has many possibilities, but the bigger picture shows this rise from 1880 onwards.
The anomily seems to between 1945 and 1985 where it was cooling from this angled increase, where the rest of the dates fairly fit such an averaged temp increase from 1880 to present.
Now, since we can only guess prior to 1970 as to the solar radiation levels, and we know that theyve gone up consistantly from there, and supposedly assuming they were going up previopusly using other methods, which are as accurate as any one side or another, its a long term effect of solar radiation as a larger contributor over centuries, so, if this is a trend here

"The IPCC feel that the ozone depletion have caused a cooling effect, 'the IPCC [conclude] that "observed stratospheric O3 losses over the past two decades have caused a negative forcing of the surface-troposphere system" of about −0.15 ± 0.10 watts per square meter "

Now, if this is so, why doesnt the exact opposite happen with the CO2 greenhouse effect? If the heat is retained at the surface, isnt the cold retained above? And then, shouldnt there then be appropriate offsets, like the IPCC says about the ozone? Again, Im missing something here, and no, not arguatively, but it just sounds contrary to me
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
A good example of where Im coming from :
"The long term modeling of the process, its measurement, study, design of theories and testing take decades to document, gain wide acceptance, and ultimately become the dominant paradigm. Several theories about the destruction of ozone were hypothesized in the 1980s, published in the late 1990s, and are currently being proven. Dr Drew Schindell, and Dr Paul Newman, NASA Goddard, proposed a theory in the late 1990s, using a SGI Origin 2000 supercomputer, that modeled ozone destruction, accounted for 78% of the ozone destroyed. Further refinement of that model accounted for 89% of the ozone destroyed, but pushed back the estimated recovery of the ozone hole from 75 years to 150 years. (An important part of that model is the lack of stratospheric flight due to depletion of fossil fuels.) "

If this is considered appropriate for ozone, then why not for CO2, which is newer along these lines
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
Watching History channel, heres Al Gore, and Dr Goddard? from NASA claiming that Greenlands ice is melting, and will cause a 20 foot rise in the oceans sea level, so, what is it? Is their land below sea level inland where the majority of ice sits in greenland, or are they just using scare tactics, since Al got on their and accused a handful of companies buying scientists to go against GW, and used the tobacco companies as an example, and the History channel just followed along like a cowed dog, showed the tabacco industries leaders saying tabacco wasnt addictive. No scare tactics?
Watch a hollywood movie, its always the evil corp trying to do great harm, whats changed here?
Having the man from NASA, a welcomed spokeman for GW backing all this shows theres a problem.
Immediately into the GW part, they claim CO2 as the cause, dont mention any other causes, dont explain how things work, but just show disaster after disaster. Scare tactics? No answers? No explanations?
And were given that anyone against this is bought and corrupt.
Oh, and by the way, they finish it with us needing to cut out fossil fuels usage, or, as Ive been saying all along, its exclusive, abusive and the attacks are rediculous on anyone opposing anything.
When you have data only being accepted for cause, you mpaint only 1 side of any picture, and this is my problem.
I really dont see how people dont see this, or just hand this over to others, thats not my shtick. I need to know, one way or the other, but theyve just ostracized any opposition, and I know enough, if you dont challenge your own beliefs, they arent that strong, and for others beliefs?
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


(This is to your three last posts)

The southern hemisphere is increasing in temperature, but at a slower rate. This still means that melting would happen, but at a slower rate. If the Greenland Ice sheet lost 1500 cubic km in 8 years (average of 187.5 cubic km per year) then if the increase in temperature and climate at the poles were equal (the south pole is a lot colder though), then you would expect that the much large ice sheet would lose more, whereas it's actually lost ice at a lower rate – 152 cubic km per year (still a staggering amount). The south pole is losing it's ice sheets, but due to it's climate it's releasing them slower than the Greenland sheets are.

Solar radiation hasn't gone up since 1970, sunspot activity went up until about 1985 then fell away to below the level for 1970 as we entered this decade, but temperatures continue to rise.

I think you may have misunderstood my point about Ozone, JDJ. There was a reduction in the levels of ozone from the release of CFCs, a reduction in a greenhouse gas will cause a cooling effect. The IPCC concluded that because of the depletion there was a reduction in the power reaching in the stratosphere-troposphere system. The exact same thing would happen with CO2, i.e. a reduction in it would cause a cooling effect in the atmosphere. But the increase in CO2 emissions over-rides this cooling trend so the atmosphere increases in temperature.

The study of CO2 nearly as old study of the Ozone layer. Carbon Dioxide properties have been know since the late 1800s when CFCs were in their infancy, and it's effects on the atmosphere have been studied since at least 1938. - 'The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on climate is occasionally called the Callendar effect, after engineer and inventor Guy Stewart Callendar who proposed this association in 1938.' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Sources_of_carbon_dioxide last line of the section). The study of the ozone layer began in 1928, when a meteorologist (G. M. B. Dobson FRS) set up recording stations to measure it, 10-years before the association was hypothesised, but they've both had over half a century of research put into them, so I would say that they are both well established theories with well established evidence and data. We know why the ozone has become depleted, because of CFCs, the modelling is to see the recovery period, or whether it will get worse. Computer simulations of these two areas are likely to be the same age.

Let's try to clear this up. Firstly we've agreed that we both don't like Al Gore, and I have said that his tactics offend me, so why bring him up again? If all the ice of Greenland melted at once then the sea level would go up approximately 20 feet (the figure is 23.6ft, but I'm not sure if that removes some of the level due to the land that would be covered in water on Greenland, where the Ice sheet was). The tobacco industry did buy up 'scientists' to claim that there was no correlation between smoking and cancer rates or that they weren't addictive, and many companies did the same regarding Global Warming some still doing so as recently as 2006 - 'In a letter earlier this month to Esso, the UK arm of ExxonMobil, the Royal Society cites its own survey which found that ExxonMobil last year distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society says misrepresent the science of climate change.' ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/oilandpetrol.business ). Whether that's changed in the three years since is up for discussion, but companies do pay for misinformation.

You have said that Climatology is exclusive and I've told you why it is, along with Nuclear Physicists, Brain Surgeons etc. they have to invest a lot of time and money to get where they are, options that are simply unavailable for many people. We do need to cut back on fossil fuel use, or just eradicate its use completely, we've discussed methods of doing this before so I feel that explanation is not needed again.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
OK, earlier we both agreed on the sea levels of the land below the ice within Greenland would hold the water, as it was discovered to be under sea level, and water doent go uphill even if there were a breach, and didnt form a lake, its still below sea level.
Whos the NASA scientist agreeing with the Greenland ice? This is a serious stack of bologna for such a proponent of GW to make such claims, and scare tactics at that.

Solar radiation has only been measured within the atmnosphere for effect starting in 1970, and it hasnt decreased, we just dont have prior measurements beforwe 1970 as accurately, and more assumed, much like alot of this is, as i mentioned earlier.

Explain this if you can.
Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, its radiation is emitted in all directions despite surrounding temps? Or, since its in the upper atmosphere, undermeath, it holds the heat, above, it holds the cold.
So, does the cold act as an attracter to this radiation, or allow an easier escape path vs the warmer ground?
If so, doesnt this then heat up the upper atmosphere and to what extent? If its a tradeoff, the claims cantg be made which are being made, and I couldnt form this question earlier properly, and appreciate your time

Heres something that really doesnt add up:
since 1995 the ice sheet lost an average of 265 cubic kilometers per year, which has contributed to about 0.7 millimeters per year in global sea level rise.

And then:
If Greenland’s ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 may shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches (about 30 to 50 centimeters) more than in other coastal areas.
http://www.grist.org/article/greenland-ice-sheet-could-raise-east-coast-sea-levels-an-extra-20-inches-by/

Now, is my math off here?
 

anonamouse77

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2009
90
0
18,630
0


Perhaps the person Gore was with in the program didn't know what Gore was going to say? What was the context that the other person was speaking in? Was he with Gore or separate from Gore in a different interview? Perhaps the interviewer asked him what would happen if all the ice on Greenland melted, and he answered this, without knowing it was going to be used as a scare tactic. I'll say now that I didn't say the depression would hold all the water released, but some of it, which is why I mentioned it when you questioned the use of the 20 feet figure.

Solar variation has many cycles to it - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Variation – this might clear it up for you. The solar output of the sun (irridiance) cycles in a sine-wave manner (in the 11-year cycle). The mean of it is 1366 W per square metre, but it varies through the cycle by +/-0.5 W per square metre.

CO2 does release its energy in all dimensions, it's not lined up to release it to the ground. But the energy it absorbs was bouncing back into space so any particles of CO2 that do release it to the surface (probably just under 50%, because the arrangement of CO2 is highly entropic and it's release of energy to the surrounding random in direction, minus a little for the curvature of the Earth), will make a difference to temperatures in the atmosphere because the energy would have escaped anyway. The CO2 in the atmosphere seems universally spread across the atmosphere (there's nothing to suggest otherwise) so it acts in all tiers of our atmosphere, rather than, say, Ozone which is mainly found in the middle reaches of the atmosphere, at 15-35km in altitude or Water vapour which is mainly found at the bottom of the troposphere near the surface.

I'm sure greater minds than ours have thought long and hard about upper atmosphere heating (Code for - I can't find anything on this :D), and the principle still remains true, that an increase in CO2 heats the atmosphere and thus the planet.

Is what aspect of you maths off here? I can't see any of your calculations. If the rate continues as stated in the article then in 90 years the level would be 63 cm higher, worldwide. I'm not sure about the ocean circulation effecting the Northeastern coast of North America as I'm not an Oceanographer, but I have searched and found no latitudinal differences in Sea level. But as with before, I'm sure they actually have logical reasoning for predicting an above average increase on the Northeastern coast, scientists usually shy away from scaremongering, leaving that to politicians and the press.
 

JAYDEEJOHN

Champion
Moderator
I agree with your numbers, but I forgot the other quote, my mistake, The 12-20 inches is added to the 6 foot they anticipate:
The eastern United States must plan on the very real possibility that total sea level rise by 2100 will exceed 6 feet on our current emissions path. Sadly, the Washington Post got the story only half right.


So, thats 72 inches plus the 12-20 inches, and 90x.7 equals 63 centimeters, which is 25 inches or so? Just rounding here, but not 84-92 inches as they claim, and also, why would water levels be higher on the highest populated area of the US, given over time, everything settles, water finds its own level etc?

And then this? :
The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.
“If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise,” says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, the lead author. “Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise.”


This sounds again like alarmist think. They do mention the SW as being a dust bowl, but, sea levels are sea levels are sea levels, and also, have they taken into account the overall growth of the ocean as well? As you raise it, it has more space to raise it more, and the coasts, not being flat, especially the areas that are most threatened, are severely angled, adding more total area to the mix.
If they cant see 5 feet doent equal 7 feet....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY