Powered by TypePad

« Taking Charge! | Main | Tiger Woods Update »

November 29, 2009

Comments

Charlie (Colorado)

I've noticed this to be the general response to questions, once you push the AGW advocate far enough: CO2 is increasing, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore CO2 is to blame AND if we do not limit CO2 warming will increase without limit!

Rob, this is my experience too. Also that of Roger Pielke Sr and several other people who tried suggesting other forcings and also data corruption issues had to be considered.

Boatbuilder

The ice on Greenland alone is enough to raise sea level over the entire world 21 feet? Really? Sounds wildly improbable to me--but I am not a scientist. (I understand that it is wildly improbable that it could all melt--what I mean is that it seems improbable that there is that much ice on Greenland).
Along the same lines--what happens when volcanic islands grow--which as I understand it is occurring constantly. Don't they displace water?

boris

What displaces the lava?

Pofarmer

I've been deep in the weeds on this stuff the last week. Let's just say that, yes, the CO2 record is also in some dispute. Ernst Beck published a paper in 07, and has recently been defending it. One part of his graph shows CO2 going up to 400 and some PPM in the '40's and then dropping back down. Of course, Alarmists say this is impossible, but, he says that it shows up in FORTY ONE different chemically analyzed series. 180 years of CO2 Then, there are those who say that really, the "greenhouse effect" as proposed is pretty much impossible, and that increasing CO2 will work as a COOLING agent, rather than warming, since it can't actually hold and disperse heat. Plus, the models have to do some intersting addition to make the theories work out, and, through the emails, we just found out that the CERES data doesn't match what the warmists say it should. NothingtodowithCO2

Boatbuilder

"What displaces the lava?"

Ice water, apparently. I told you I'm not a scientist.

Charlie (Colorado)

The ice on Greenland alone is enough to raise sea level over the entire world 21 feet? Really? Sounds wildly improbable to me--but I am not a scientist

Boatbuilder, it's not deep science, just arithmetic: 2.85 million cubic km is roughly 2.5 million cubic km of water; the whole ocean is 361 million square km, 2.5/361 is about 0.007 km, or 7 meters.

Then, there are those who say that really, the "greenhouse effect" as proposed is pretty much impossible, and that increasing CO2 will work as a COOLING agent, rather than warming, since it can't actually hold and disperse heat.

Who are these "those"? That CO2 is the major driver is, indeed, much more questionable that the warmers say; that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is pretty durn well established. That site you linked has one bit of physics wildly wrong: the whole notion that the greenhouse effect comes from the Earth being a closed system. It's actually pretty open. What happens is that visible light comes into the atmosphere, warms the surface and is re-radiated as infrared, but CO2 and CH4 are less transparent to infrared so is reflected back.

Or think of it this way: if his reasoning actually worked, then a greenhouse — the regular old glass greenhouse — wouldn't work either: it wouldn't be any warmer inside than out.

Neo

Between the "Climate Scientists" and and the Iranians, perhaps Obama could stay in Copenhagen indefinitely when he goes there next month.

Barack Obama, the best Affirmative Action can deliever.

Charlie (Colorado)

Along the same lines--what happens when volcanic islands grow--which as I understand it is occurring constantly. Don't they displace water?

You bet. If a volcanic island the size of Greenland were to suddenly grow in the middle of the ocean, then it would also raise sea levels pretty dramatically.

Not that sea level would be the biggest problem we'd have in that case.

But an island the size of Hawai'i is around 0.1 percent of the volume of the ice cap.

DrJ

Po, Chaco has it right. Rick linked to an article either in this thread or the Black Friday open thread that provides a very readable introduction to the various phenomena involved (at least I found it so). You may want to look at that one, and it is pretty short.

Charlie (Colorado)

What displaces the lava?

It's under pressure — it just reduces the pressure a tiny amount. Probably if you really dug down, either some gas volume under the surface expands a little, or the earth's circumference reduces a tiny amount.

Charlie (Colorado)

DrJ, were you thinking of his link to the Wegman report?

Charlie (Colorado)

Okay, now I have to actually write this damned article.

Boatbuilder

Arithmetic, to me, is deep science. I stand corrected, and will (try to) leave these things to the experts henceforth.

DrJ

No, the one by Lindzen in Energy and Environment ("Taking Greenhouse Warming Seriously", 2007, v18 No 7+8, pp 937-950).

Patrick R. Sullivan

It's rich that Krugman is pooh poohing the e-mails. Anyone remember what conclusions he leapt to back in 2002 when Jason Leopold supposedly had e-mails implicating Thomas White in fraud at Enron?

BumperStickerist

to borrow a popular concept:

I'll believe Climate Warming is a Catastrophe
When Al Gore Starts Behaving Like It's One.

-

I'll Believe Climate Science is a Science
when The Climate Scientists Start
Using the Scientific Method.

-

besides which, Air Products, Praxair and other companies have years of experience separating out CO2 from air ... get a space elevator built for a relative cheap cost out on a Pacific island (or Dubai), set up a Air Products Plant and start shooting big-ass containers of liquid CO2 into Space.

I have the proof that this is a completely workable solution, but the raw data came from, like the 80s, and it's all gone.

Trust me.

.

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

These guys go a bit further than Lindzen. I are not smart enuf to comment but I love the Germanic tone. The subtext of "dumkopfs" in relationship to the Climate Scientologists reverberates from the translation.

boris

Rick's Lindzen article.

It explains that heat radiation from Earth is mostly in the upper atmosphere. There is too much water vapor and other absorbing gases close to the surface.

DrJ

You'd be amazed at how many proposals I have read that wish to remove CO2 from stack gases (among others) without performing even a back-of-the-envelope estimate of how much it would cost. I flush those without any regret.

DrJ

Rick, would you try the link again?

matt

now what about the ozone layer?

matt

and those giant holes underground where the oil was?

We can start a whole new movement to pump the excess water generated from global warming into depleted oil fields. There's gotta be a few bucks in that one.

sylvia

"Sylvia, the thing is that the wave energy obeys what's called an inverse-square law."

Yes, but the waves come into the phone unconcentrated. So what concentrates the waves? The phone I guess. And how does the phone do that? So the phone emits waves outwards, can they not decrease the concentration and power of those waves by building more cell towers, so the waves have less distance to go?

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

It's Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse E ects Within The Frame Of Physics by Gerlich and Tscheuschner

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Dunno what happened with the hot link - sorry.

Ralph

IF CO2 is the major reason for AGW, the warmists have a real problem with the fact that the planet has cooled over the past ten years while CO2 has continued to rise.

Also, I've not seen them address the fact that CO2 has been shown to be a LAGGING indicator of temperature (which is entirely consistent with the known, and demonstrable, behavior of the oceans.)

Also AGW supporters continue to promulgate the claim that "8 of the warmest years on record occurred in the last ten years" when NASA has revised it's record to now show 1934 as the warmest year.

AGW supporters appear to never cease repeating a claim even after it has been disproven.

peter

The Swiss, apparently, have had enough. LUN

DrJ

Thanks, Rick. Wow -- 115 pages! I won't get to that tonight.

Interesting that the second author lists his physical address in Germany, yet has an Oak Ridge email address.

PD

Also AGW supporters continue to promulgate the claim that "8 of the warmest years on record occurred in the last ten years" when NASA has revised it's record to now show 1934 as the warmest year.

How does the 1934 data point disprove that claim?

Or did you mean to say "the 8 warmest years occurred in the last ten years"? (which isn't quite the same thing)

Rick Ballard

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/
0707.1161v4.pdf

Like they say - Third time's a real pain in the butt.

clarice

I only regret that I haven't a bigger piece of this scam. It was a beaut ..

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

The conclusions found on pages 93-94 show a distinct lack of the ability to dissemble which characterizes most Climate Scientology.

In other words: Already the natural greenhouse erect is a myth beyond physical reality. The CO2-greenhouse effect, however is a \mirage" [205]. The horror visions of a risen sea level,melting pole caps and developing deserts in North America and in Europe are fictitious consequences of fictitious physical mechanisms as they cannot be seen even in the climate model computations. The emergence of hurricanes and tornados cannot be predicted by climate models, because all of these deviations are ruled out. The main strategy of modern CO2-greenhouse gas defenders seems to hide themselves behind more and more pseudo-explanations, which are not part of the academic education or even of the physics training.

I'm quite ignorant as to whether the paper entirely supports the conclusions but I do like that style.

Pofarmer

Well, I see that Rick Ballard is stickin up for me, as it were. I've been reading some sites of theoretical physicists(sorry, no links) and an awful lot of them seem to be of two opinions. #1, that CO2 doesn't have the correct properties to do what is ascribed to it here, and #2, that even if it did, the proposed mechanism violates the first and second rules of thermodynamics.

Now, even if CO2 was a Greenhouse driver, how hard would it be for convection to overcome it's effects and radiate that extra heat to space? Yeah, that's not addressed either. You see, The Greenhouse effect, as Anthropological Global Warming, are THEORIES, that both have the distinction of being unproven. I wish our own Melinda were here to comment on this.

Pofarmer

Oh, and Dr. J, be forewarned that there are papers claiming to "debunk" the German paper, just as there are those claiming to "debunk" Beck, although no such thing has occured.

DrJ

Rick,

I'm on page 18, and so far so good. They start at a lower level than I would, but that's OK. I get a sense of where they are going with this, but I'll not skip ahead just yet.

Neo

Paul Krugman (on ABC this morning) leaves you wondering if all economists are equally corrupt as these “climate scientists.”

DrJ

Po, the paper Rick cited above will get into the treatment of radiation, which is the key issue. The rest of the stuff is conventional heat and momentum transfer.

If the radiation term is not handled properly, the global warming models are based on simple heuristics. These can be useful, even if they violate the first and second laws. Counter-intuitive, but true.

Truth is, most of us do not get much into radiation because it is not important for most of the systems we deal with. It never has been for mine.

On another note, the ski resort up the hill opened this weekend. It's only weather, I know!

DrJ

there are papers claiming to "debunk" the German paper

I was going to ask about those. I'd be curious, but man, not today! I still have a paper review to submit and a short proposal to write!

anduril

Apparently the ethics studies I received in law school were more rigorous than those undertaken by the AGW "scientists."

:-)

pagar

Are these people living on the same planet the rest of us do?

Leaders say momentum building on climate changechange

Pofarmer

Are these people living on the same planet the rest of us do?

Unfortunately, yes.

I was with my wife's family yesterday, who are all pretty conservative, and out of probably 15 adults, nobody had heard about this yet. If they don't acknowledge it, then it doesn't happen.

Charlie (Colorado)

Yes, but the waves come into the phone unconcentrated. So what concentrates the waves? The phone I guess. And how does the phone do that? So the phone emits waves outwards, can they not decrease the concentration and power of those waves by building more cell towers, so the waves have less distance to go?

The phone sends radio waves, so they start at the antenna concentrated.

Rick Ballard

Pofarmer,

It's a RTFM problem compounded by the fact that the manual is dispersed. I know that you and several others here have RTFM wrt WUWT and CA but I don't believe that more than 4-5% of even a well grounded and reasonably intelligent set of commenters will go to the trouble to do so. BTW - another decent synopsis of the "adjustment" situation. There are additional links in the comments to articles clarifying the amount of pasteurization or chilling used to develop the nice plate of GIGO to be served to the gullible public.

Charlie (Colorado)

Well, I see that Rick Ballard is stickin up for me, as it were. I've been reading some sites of theoretical physicists(sorry, no links) and an awful lot of them seem to be of two opinions. #1, that CO2 doesn't have the correct properties to do what is ascribed to it here, and #2, that even if it did, the proposed mechanism violates the first and second rules of thermodynamics.

Don't confound the question of whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas and if CO2 is the dominant forcing in AGW. CO2 definitely leads to trapping more heat BUT there are other effects as well, some of them countering the CO2 greenhouse. There's a real question whether the small additional amount of CO2 from humans is enough to account for even the small warming observed without the magical corrections.

If someone is telling you that there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect, then either they don't know what they're talking about or you're misunderstanding them.

Jane

Paul Krugman (on ABC this morning) leaves you wondering if all economists are equally corrupt as these “climate scientists.”

I just watched that Neo (DVR) and Krugman was breathtaking. I am simply amazed at how facile he, Obama and about 90% of our elected officials are at lying. The ends justify any means.

cathyf
But an island the size of Hawai'i is around 0.1 percent of the volume of the ice cap.
Just off the top of my head this seems too low. "The island" meaning the part showing above the surface is just a tiny fraction of the whole mound of lava, since the island is just the very tippy top of a very tall mountain that is on the deep sea floor. And the whole mountain of lava is displacing sea water.
Pofarmer

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf

Take it up with those guys.

boris

Rick's link to "Falsification Of ... The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects ... Within The Frame Of Physics".

From what I've read it is very skeptical of AGW. Moin poinst so far ... properties attributed to CO2 by AGW have not been demonstrated in the laboratory. Of course that wouldn't refer to known IR absorbtion at the appx cetner of the Earth's radiation curve.

Rick Ballard

CathyF,

Your point is illustrated at 20.00,-157.00 elev 600 miles on Google Earth. There's a lot more under than above water.

Charlie (Colorado)

Just off the top of my head this seems too low.

I knew the simplifying assumption was gonna catch me. That's really the volume of a cylinder with the area of Hawai'i, 3 km deep. It's good to order of magnitude certainly.

Pofarmer

Maybe Hans Schrueder is more to your taste?

IlovemyCO2

Sue

I was watching NatGeo a few months ago and they were showing the volcanoes underneath the ocean and how they were more active than ever. I think I commented at the time that I couldn't figure out why they were showing something that clearly indicated man wasn't causing the oceans to heat up.

Charlie (Colorado)

Po, I don't have the time to thoroughly review 115 pages right now, but I've got to say when a paper says "the analogy stinks" as part of a disproof it's not off to a good start. He's also starting off with this looney-tunes notion that "average temperature" isn't well-defined, which is clearly silly -- if I had a thermometer on every square inch of the earth, took the temp for each one. summed them, and divided by the appropriate very large number of thermometers, I'd get a well defined number.

THere's just a whole lot of planetary science, done by a whole lot of people, in a whole lot of areas other than AGW, that depends on the usual CO2 greenhouse effect. It would be a helluva surprise if it weren't workable.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Sorry guys and gals, but when you win 43 to 14, I just have to say:

CHARGERS RULE!

DrJ

Take it up with those guys.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. I've not gotten through the entire article yet (I just got in my RSC review), but there is a reason that physicists don't do much practical modeling. Their view is so fundamental that there is no way one can solve anything of practical interest. That's an exaggeration, but there's also a grain to truth to it.

One example is the Peng-Robinson equation of state. It is thermodynamically inconsistent, so a physicist would reject it. Yet it is among the most useful to describe the physical properties of supercritical fluids: it is accurate and easy to manipulate, particularly when one deals with mixtures.

Of course the more asymptotic limits and fundamental physics one includes, the more likely it is that the model will work. It better conserve mass and energy, for example. The latter one is the first law of thermodynamics, so I'll be interested to see what the alleged deviation is.

Charlie (Colorado)

Po, look, try to find something that doesn't have quite such an obvious "I am a crank" thing to it.

pagar

"nobody had heard about this yet"
Pofarmer, I just spent several weeks between some farmer/family in Iowa/retirees in Iowa, working folks in Kansas, and my daughters/granddaughters and greatgrands in Washington state. None of them discuss the issues we discuss on JOM (for the most part).
This was before the Global warming fraud came up, but they just don't see any of it as being important, I guess.

Sue

Intergenerational inequity is a moral issue. Just as when Abraham Lincoln faced slavery and when Winston Churchill faced Nazism, the time for compromises and half-measures is over. Can we find a leader who understands the core issue and will lead?

I think they are in full panic mode. Is Hansen seeing his cash cow being sent to the slaughter house?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

New logo, courtesy of Reliapundit.

boris

"I'd get a well defined number."

Perhaps it would be like a vector sum of planet velocities relative to the sun's frame of reference. Certainly well defined but at any given time it could be quite large or very small and point any direction in the plane of the solar system.

Not very useful.

PD

CNN take on the Swiss vote:

Swiss voters on Sunday adopted a referendum banning the construction of minarets, seen by some on the far right as a sign of encroaching Islamism.

So, since the measure passed with a majority of the vote, most Swiss are far right wingers?

Gmax

OK I just went to wiki and found the 2.85 estimate. However Greenland's topography is such that there are mountains around the perimeter such that it seems unlikely that the ice melt would make it way to the Ocean as the mountains are more than 21 feet above sea level. Greenland would become a circular island with a large fresh water lake.

If Greenland melts then does the adjacent Arctic floating polar cap melt too? How much volume do we get back from that event? In meters or feet ( grin ).

Pofarmer

"Po, look, try to find something that doesn't have quite such an obvious "I am a crank" thing to it."

Oh, do come on now, there are some quite lovable, and quite correct(as well as incorrect) cranks out there. Just because someone expresses their opinions strongly on the internet(which, BTW, is the only way they'll get noticed on the Internet) shouldn't be used to offhandedly rule them out. I'm not worried about someone's attitude, I'm worried about their physics and science adding up.

Rob Crawford

So, since the measure passed with a majority of the vote, most Swiss are far right wingers?

Wanna bet they all have guns in their homes, too? Probably assault rifles, at that.

Pofarmer

Oh, and on Average temperature.

Average temperature is worthless, absolutely worthless. The only temperatures that are important are the temperatures where food is grown. The temperature in a desert goes up 5 degrees? Who cares. The temperature in the Arctic goes up or down 10 degrees? Who cares. The temperature in our food going regions go down 5 degrees, and I guarantee you everyone will care. Also of note, is that the upward trend with a lot of these numbers isn't that daytime temperatures are increasing, it's that nighttime temperatures are increasing. In some cases with the numbers I've looked at in MO, daytime temps have DECREASED dramatically, while nighttime temps have come up to hide that decrease. So, yes, Average temperatures are a useless metric.

Gmax

2.5 million cubic km of water; the whole ocean is 361 million square km, 2.5/361 is about 0.007 km, or 7 meters.

Doesn't this assume that the ocean is a big container with sufficient capacity to hold the 21 meters straight up? Low lying coastal areas that flood would increase the square km under the ocean and thus dropped the magnitude of the ocean increase dramatically.

Gmax

insert "rise" after the last use of ocean.

Pofarmer

OH, and an example of a well defined, and useful, metric is growing degree days. Take a look at those world wide, and you'd have something.

caro

Like Boatbuilder, I just can't believe that melting the ice in Greenland could raise ocean level by 21 feet. I followed the footnote on the 2+million km cubed of ice figure and see that number comes from... you guessed it, the !PCC 2001 report. Greenland has 39 mountain peaks over a mile high. Plus, isn't there a lot of air in that kind of ice? Obviously, IANAS.

matt

is anyone shorting carbon offsets yet?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

GMAX: I thought the problem with ice melting up around Greenland was not oceans rising, but all that fresh water dumping into the salty water screws up the ocean conveyor belt, which controls the climate.

Rocco

When a crime is committed, the criminal usually destroys the evidence.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

The Dog Ate My Tree Rings -- By: Mark Steyn

But no, it was systemic. Hysterical queens like Gordon Brown are demanding we introduce global taxation, micro-regulation of every aspect of your life, massive multi-trillion dollar transfers from the productive sector to eco-rackets and transnational bureaucracies, bovine flatulence levies and extraterrestrial surveillance of once sovereign states on the basis of fevered speculations for which there is no raw data:

[...]

No raw data, huh? But why let that stand in your way?

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
hit and run

mrs hit and run had Bible study this past week on Monday. She was meeting a friend in a parking lot to carpool to the home of the woman hosting the Bible study.

Half way through the video they watch as part of the Bible study,her phone rang. Oops. She forgot to turn off her ringer. She ducked out into the foyer and turned off the ringer.

But when she dug furiously in her purse to get the phone,she realized...she hadn't felt her keys in there.

She thought to herself...no,I couldn't have. She whispered to her friend who agreed...no,she couldn't have.

And yet,after Bible study they got back to the parking lot and...well...yes,mrs hit and run did.

She left the car running when she got out to get in her friend's car. It ran for the entire hour and a half they were gone.

Muwahahaahaaha.

Offset that.

Because it was an unseasonably warm 70 degrees here today. Hmmmmm...coincidence?

Gmax

Maybe I answered my own question. The answer is that there is a hell of a lot more floating ice than ice on Greenland. Here is what I found:

The area covered by sea ice ranges between 9 and 12 million km². In addition, the Greenland ice sheet covers about 1.71 million km² and contains about 2.6 million km³ of ice.

If you understand the thickness has been measured by coring with ranges from 3-4 meters to up to 20 meters, then the cubic calculation is 27 to 36 million cubic kilometers or perhaps substantially more.

If the melt volume decrease is about 12%,seems to me that nothing would happen even if Greenland did not have mountains, other than it being highly likely that the Oceans would fall a bit.

12% of 27 million would be 3.24 cubic kilometers of decreased volume and 12% of 36 million would be 4.3 million cubic kilometers. That means the 2.5 million cubic kilometers of Greenland aint enough to fill the shrinkage.

Now if the Antarctic ice that does not float melts too we would have a rise for sure. But most reports recently have had the Antarctic ice shelf growing not shrinking.

PaulL

if I had a thermometer on every square inch of the earth, took the temp for each one. summed them, and divided by the appropriate very large number of thermometers, I'd get a well defined number.

I hope you get started soon, because such a project is going to eat up a lot of your spare time.

When you do get the number, what good will it do anyone? Like Master Pofarmer says, it's useless.

cathyf

Also, another kind of back of the envelope hand waver... When a significant amount of ice-on-land (Greenland, Antarctica, etc.) melts, doesn't the decrease in weight cause the land to rise? If we are talking about a significant amount of land and, then it would displace less water, which would have an effect that counteracts the additional water flowing into the oceans from the melt...

Also, gmax, if the ice is floating freely, then when it melts it does not change the displaced volume. Ice has 85% of the density of liquid water. Which means that exactly 15% of a freely floating piece of ice is above the water line. When the ice melts, it displaces less air but the melt displaces exactly as much water as when it was freely floating ice.

Charlie (Colorado)

Perhaps it would be like a vector sum of planet velocities relative to the sun's frame of reference. Certainly well defined but at any given time it could be quite large or very small and point any direction in the plane of the solar system.

Well, it would, if temperature were a vector quantity instead of a scalar.

The same argument could be applied to the "temperature" of a glass of water.

BobS

Forgive me for making political hay out of all this, but will anyone agree with me that the Democrats look so stupid for going all in with this nonsense?

Gmax

If its free floating Cathyf, I think you are right, but a lot of the icecap overlaps land mass, and thus does not free float. I think the odds of there not being volume created by melt, is about as good as the odds Phil Jones resigns and apologizes. Slim to none.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Another great one from Vanderleun:

ClimateGate Software. Garbage In, Garbage Out, and a Garbage Disposal in the Middle

Charlie (Colorado)

OK I just went to wiki and found the 2.85 estimate. However Greenland's topography is such that there are mountains around the perimeter such that it seems unlikely that the ice melt would make it way to the Ocean as the mountains are more than 21 feet above sea level. Greenland would become a circular island with a large fresh water lake.

Uh, you want to rethink that one, or should I point out the (fairly obvious) error?

If Greenland melts then does the adjacent Arctic floating polar cap melt too? How much volume do we get back from that event? In meters or feet ( grin ).

0. The volume of melted ice is precisely the same as the volume of water the ice displaces. See Archimedes in the tub.

DrJ

Did someone actually post the above nonsense? Conflating scalars and vectors? Oh. My. God.

srp

On the acid rain issue, see this:

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html

(Sorry for not studying the link method on this blog.)

Charlie (Colorado)

Doesn't this assume that the ocean is a big container with sufficient capacity to hold the 21 meters straight up? Low lying coastal areas that flood would increase the square km under the ocean and thus dropped the magnitude of the ocean increase dramatically.

It would, but in most places the coast comes up from the sea fairly significantly in a short distance. I don't think it makes a very large difference compared to the total area of the oceans.

Charlie (Colorado)

So, yes, Average temperatures are a useless metric.

Um, this was a joke, right? Sometimes I can't tell.

(If you were serious, consider: what you are saying then is that since Antarctica and the ice covered parts of Greenland have no significant growing season at all, then an increase in temp there, even if it were 200°C, would have no significance.)

Pofarmer

Ya know, I think I'd be a little disappointed if a retired Analytical Physicist wasn't a crank.

Gmax

Uh, you want to rethink that one, or should I point out the (fairly obvious) error?

Lay it on me, its an ice sheet on top of Greenland's land mass and yes there are mountainous perimeters on Greenland. If it fills the air mass in between the perimeter how does that get to the Ocean?

PD

The volume of melted ice is precisely the same as the volume of water the ice displaces. See Archimedes in the tub.

Only if Archimedes frozen occupies the same volume as Archimedes thawed.

boris

"The same argument could be applied to the "temperature" of a glass of water."

Not in the sense that a glass of water would typically be in equilibrium.

Of course ocean and land climate cycles are not as independent as planet orbits but I doubt they are in sync either. Besides my vectors are restricted to a plane. They also can be projected onto a single dimension line drawn between the Earth and the sun ... Oh Look !!! the average velocity is headed toward the sun !!! And it's increasing !!! Oh No ...

Sue

::face/palm::

I am lost as a goose. I wish you people would speak English.

Pofarmer

(If you were serious, consider: what you are saying then is that since Antarctica and the ice covered parts of Greenland have no significant growing season at all, then an increase in temp there, even if it were 200°C, would have no significance.)

If you must go to the ridiculous, then, I think I made my point.

Thing is though, at one time Greenland WAS green. At one time, not all that long ago geologically, there were temperate to tropical plants growing in what is now Siberia. At one time, where there is now only Tundra, fairly recently, there were forests. So, when the IPCC calls for a 1 or 4 or whatever degree rise, even that isn't all that scary in geological terms. It only becomes scary when they do the runaway thingy. And, I think the fact is, that research shows that when it does warm, it's generally the higher lattitudes that warm the most, and, that is mostly-yep, beneficial, especially in the NH.

Pofarmer

Oh Look !!! the average velocity is headed toward the sun !!! And it's increasing !!! Oh No ...

Lord, I'm warped, that made me laugh out loud.

sbw

Sue, it's simple physics: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

pagar

I still think the discussion over Global warming fraud should be over the money, not the melting ice. We know there have been periods where the earth was warmer than other periods. Knowing the problems of smoothing those periods out so the temperature stays level are impossible to solve, a clever person or two could figure out that the government gives people money to come up with answers (not necessarily the right answers, just answers). Get a few people who are looking for any crisis they can use to promote one world government and a few scientists who are looking for more grant money and it's a never ending fraud. All the Global Warming fraud management team has to do is make sure the scientists never solve the made up problem and the Politicians keep talking about how life is going to end tomorrow if all the money in America is not turned over to their crisis management team immediately. We need to break the cycle, end the free Money, end the political power of those politicians who promote this fraud.

srp

CO2 has to make the Earth warmer than it otherwise would be--the radiative physics and the thermodynamics are pretty straightforward. As it happens, real terrestrial greenhouses are NOT warmed by this mechanism because their heat transfer process is dominated by convection and conduction rather than radiation.

Bubba Gump

AGW is even more fun kidz!
Greenhouse gases is a poor analogy, they don't work nuttin' like a fureel greenhouse.
Fureel Greenhouses keep warm by restricting convection!
The so called greenhouse gases don't work like that at all.
The greenhouse gases, they absorb radiation, mostly infrared.

Charlie (Colorado)

>i?Lay it on me, its an ice sheet on top of Greenland's land mass and yes there are mountainous perimeters on Greenland. If it fills the air mass in between the perimeter how does that get to the Ocean?

What is 21 feet deep spread out over the entire ocean is considerably more than 21 feet deep if it's all on top of (relatively little) Greenland. The icecap is a lot higher than the ridges around the edges; if it melted, it would overflow them considerably.

There are outflow glaciers on the southeast where there isn't much of a ridge, so the water would run outt that way.

mockmook

Chaco,

Wouldn't a real measure of average temp have to take numerous readings and integrate them over a day?

Unless the daily high or low temp has been shown to be a reliable proxy for the integrated heat, then this is a problem with the average temperature data.

Extraneus

For those who may not have come across the term, a vector has magnitude and direction. The change in temperature is a vector.

Strawman Cometh

Holy crap, srp, and no offense.
I didn't see your post.
Jinx

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame