Polar ice adding more to rising seas

by D. Nyer Mon Mar 14, 2011 02:57

I'm not sure it would be such a bad thing if the earth warmed up a bit, or is anyone else getting tired of this damned cold? When Greenland was an estimated 5 degrees warmer there were lush forests and butterflies. I like butterflies a lot more than lying scientists and ecomaniacs!

by Astronomer. Mon Mar 14, 2011 09:47

On a related scientific theme people might be interested in what happened off the coast of Japan.

A section of the Earth's crust plunged downwards under another section of the crust.
This heaved the upper section upwards.
The ocean above heaved upwards with it ,creating the unimaginable waves.

The oceanic crust which plunged downwards increased the average density of the earth relative to its radius,very slightly.

Like a spinning ice skater rotates faster as she lowers her arms to her sides, mother earth also rotated a bit faster.
(A few microseconds faster every day. No need to adjust the clocks.)

The North pole moved by a few meters as the earth wobbled.

So if you were planting your flag in the North Pole as the 'quake struck...you missed!

(T'was ever thus. The American Appalation Mountains and the Ozasks and the Connemara and Scottish and Norwegian mountains once formed a single chain.)

Fad Fado Fado.

by Namor Sun Mar 20, 2011 15:14

Full article at url.

An international research team has compared the hot summers of 2003 and 2010 in detail for the first time. Last year’s heatwave across Eastern Europe and Russia was unprecedented in every respect: Europe has never experienced so large summer temperature anomalies in the last 500 years.

The summer of 2010 was extreme. Russia was especially hard hit by the extraordinary heat: in Moscow, daytime temperatures of 38.2°C were recorded and it didn’t get much cooler at night. Devastating fires caused by the dry conditions covered an area of 1 million hectares, causing crop failures of around 25%; the total damage ran to about USD 15 billion. Even though passengers were also collapsing on trains in Germany in 2010 because the air-con units had failed in the heat, the general perception is still that the summer of 2003 was the most extreme – among Western Europeans at least. An international research team involving ETH Zurich has now compared the two heatwaves and just published their findings in Science.

The 2010 heatwave (see at the right side of this picture) shattered all the records in terms of the deviation from the average temperatures. Credit: ETH Zürich

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Sun Mar 20, 2011 16:12

..in Queensland were fed by exceptionally warm ocean surface temperatures associated with the El Nino/La Nina cycles in the Pacific.

Given that Queensland is a major coal supplier to China you'd be tempted to join the dots. But the locus of the blowback is just coincidence. It also hit Sri Lanka and rippled as far as Brazil.
And as the Arctic icecap retreats they follow it with drilling crews. Homo-too-fucking-clever-by-half.

by Geologist. Sun Mar 20, 2011 16:56

When they were building the Suez Canal people fretted that the Indian Ocean was higher than the water in the Med. and that Rome and Athens might be flooded.

The builder of the Suez Canal Ferdinand De'Lessup sneered this:
"Some people don't understand the law of gravity."

Different story today.

If the Greenland ice melts both Dublin and Cork really will be submerged.
Ferdinand would agree.

by D. Nyer Mon Mar 21, 2011 16:43

So 2010 was the warmest year? Does anyone else living in the real world think that is true? It was the hottest by +0.01 degrees according to Warmist Quack Jim Hansen. His claim has been spread wide in the press but most real scientists not in the pay of the IPCC do not agree him. Hansen is well know for making exaggerated and disproven claims of catastrophic global warming. The following document debunks his 'Warmest Year' rubbish, using the same data which he manipulated to generate his bedwetting claim.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers...r.pdf

by pat c Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:53

Thats an interesting link. Not saying I'm convinced but its real argument. Calling Hansen a Quack is not. It only devalues your case.

by Namor Sun Mar 27, 2011 14:11

Full article at url below.

Lord Lawson's 'misleading' climate claims challenged by scientific adviser

Tory peer accused of using 'meaningless' comparisons to try to make his argument against the need to tackle global warming

Lord Lawson, the former chancellor, has been privately accused by the government's chief scientific adviser of making "incorrect" and "misleading" claims in his book on climate change.

The charge against Lawson, the country's most prominent global-warming sceptic, was made during an extraordinary and at times fractious exchange of letters between the men following a meeting over coffee at the Lords.

Sir John Beddington wrote to Lawson to tell him that his book, An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming, had made "a number of points related to the underlying science of climate change that are incorrect or presented in a misleading way". An appendix to his letter accused Lawson of making "meaningless" comparisons to prove his thesis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/27/lord-...viser

by Scientist Wed Mar 30, 2011 14:25

Peer-reviewed Scientific Paper: “worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years”

The results are stunning for their contradiction to AGW theories which suggest global warming would accelerate sea level rise during the last century.

Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses - http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10...157.1
J. R. Houston - Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, and R. G. Dean - Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil and Coastal Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, U.S.A

Published in - Journal of Coastal Research
Abstract

Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60–156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records.

Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records during the 20th century. Instead, for each time period we consider, the records show small decelerations that are consistent with a number of earlier studies of worldwide-gauge records. The decelerations that we obtain are opposite in sign and one to two orders of magnitude less than the +0.07 to +0.28 mm/y2 accelerations that are required to reach sea levels predicted for 2100 by Vermeer and Rahmsdorf (2009), Jevrejeva, Moore, and Grinsted (2010), and Grinsted, Moore, and Jevrejeva (2010). Bindoff et al. (2007) note an increase in worldwide temperature from 1906 to 2005 of 0.74uC.

It is essential that investigations continue to address why this worldwide-temperature increase has not produced acceleration of global sea level over the past 100 years, and indeed why global sea level has possibly decelerated for at least the last 80 years.

by Real Scientist. Wed Mar 30, 2011 16:52

Subject:
Not Warm Water.

The Subject is melting ice.

"Our analyses do not indicate acceleration in sea level in U.S. tide gauge records."

Warm objects expand a bit.
Not much.

But only melting ice will raise the sea levels catastropiclly.

The extreme thermal expansion which busts your pipes occurs during a chemical reaction called melting.

The 90% of the iceberg which is over the sea sinks back when it melts and expands the sea.

The melting of Greenland will innundate Dublin.

(Not to mention the horror story if Antarctia decides to melt.)

by opus diablos - the regressive hypocrite party Thu Mar 31, 2011 13:47

..you mean the 90% of the ICECAP.

I think 90% of icebergs tends to be BELOW the waterline.

but aside from the global warming argument, our using the oceans and atmosphere as dumps is having other consequences that might well hit long before sea levels become a problem. The destruction of corals and mangroves, globally, is destroying the nurseries that underpin already depleted fish stocks. The poisoniong of the Mexican Gulf and the preparations to hit the Arctic Ocean with the same oil-race do not bode well.

Maybe we should pile all these extractive corporations onto a fleet of shuttles and shoot them home to Mars. If we painted a dart board on the surface we could let the nuclear lunatics fire away till the arsenal was shot. But they'd probably enjoy the gig so much they'd go up and start firing back.

by R.S. Sun Apr 03, 2011 13:13

My misprint.
Expanded Sea ice shrinks back to the volume of ocean water when it melts.
Melted sea ice does not expand the sea.

Greenland and Antarctica are up on dry land.
When their ice melts the volume of extra water in sea the will be about 90% of the original ice volume on land.

If that happens coastal people will need a new Noah in his Ark.