Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

Full story: Newsday 47,495
When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, global warming was a slow-moving environmental problem that was easy to ignore. Full Story

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40650 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the researchers (Trenberth) states the uptake of heat in the deep oceans will result in a rise in sea level beyond that which occurs from ice melt. This logically means that melt rate estimates are likely in error due to the failure of incorporating thermal expansion resulting from the assumed deep ocean heating.
Let's see if we can unpick some your misunderstandings here.

Ice melt is not estimated from sea level rise- it is measured by satellites.

Sea level also increases as the oceans warm- at any depth. This is already known.

The budget must close- this is true.

Sea level rise must equal expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume.

The thermal expansion in the deep ocean was not incorporated in previous sea level budgets, but those budgets didn't close.

Sea level was more than expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume.

If sea level rise had equalled expansion due to warming plus ice melt volume, and the figure for expansion due to warming had increased, then you would have to assume either the ice melt data were in error, or doubt the deep ocean warming.

But because the budget didn't close, thermal expansion due to deep ocean warming actually explains the observed sea level rise better, and gives more confidence to observations of ice melt.
Recent sea level rise has so far been difficult to fully explain: satellites measure global sea level rise since 1993 to be about 3.1 mm/year. The warming and expanding 'upper ocean', or the top 700 metres measured by ships and buoys can explain 1.2 mm/year whilst the water added by melting snow and ice can be estimated from satellite gravity measurements for ice sheets and other methods for smaller glaciers, and is about 0.85 mm/year.

Simple addition of the numbers above (1.2 + 0.85 mm/year = 2.05 mm/year) shows that the result from the upper ocean thermal expansion and addition of water mass is still about 1 mm/year short of the observed 3.1 mm/year sea level rise. However, some previous studies have had these numbers quite close to each other when the uncertainties in the estimates have been considered.

....

The model simulations give a sea level rise of 1.1 mm/year from the thermal expansion of the deep ocean. When that is added to the 2.05 mm/year calculated above, the result (3.15 mm/year) is remarkably close to the observed rise of 3.1 mm/year (which more accurately is 3.11 mm/year).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/deep_ocean_wa...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#40651 Oct 13, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
So how much of the past 17 years of sea level rise is from thermal expansion and how much is due to ice melt and glacial calving?
Logically; old estimates of ice melt (and subsequent sea level rise) could not be correct if the "missing" heat was not a factor in their calculations.
Your thoughts?
I think you should do some basic reading on the subject rather than advertising and gloating in your ignorance and misunderstanding.

http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/do...
Joe

Fullerton, CA

#40652 Oct 13, 2013
My great grandfather used to record temps back in 1920-1935. He said they drank wine and often made up temps for the log book. He said it was "close enough" for government work. Said everyone did it.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40653 Oct 13, 2013
Joe wrote:
My great grandfather used to record temps back in 1920-1935. He said they drank wine and often made up temps for the log book. He said it was "close enough" for government work. Said everyone did it.
Name names, dates,.. otherwise you are an annoying liar..

You posted the same tale more than once.. as if you could pass the smell test; you don't so far.

LOL everyone??
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40654 Oct 13, 2013
names include personal, government, and location names..
dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#40655 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Speaking of man-made climate change.. "The federal government's research agencies have been largely shuttered, with scientists sent home and projects shelved," it read. "There are five Nobel Prize-winning researchers currently working for the federal government, all of whom are world-renowned scientists and leaders in their field. Four of them are currently furloughed and unable to conduct their federal research on behalf of the American public due to the government shutdown."
Among the agencies mentioned, the National Science Foundation has had it the worst. Ninety-eight percent of its employees have been furloughed, and the organization has not issued any new scientific research grants. The NSF funds non-medical science and engineering research and education programs across the country.
The National Institutes of Health, the nation's top medical research facility, has lost almost three-quarters of its staff, forcing it to turn away most new patients from its studies. Funding for the NIH became a focal point of debate early in the shutdown when reports emerged that children with cancer were being denied entry into potentially life-saving studies.
The majority of Americans may feel the greatest impact, however, from the cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. Two-thirds of its personnel have been sent home, and as flu season begins, influenza monitoring has been cut back, according to the White House.
Still, the CDC will continue its most important role in monitoring any imminent threats to the public's health, and most flu vaccines are produced by private companies.[cnn]
Yes, and some of these scientist are saving the world from CAGW! Now they sit at home instead of working to save the planet. So sad that we are doomed because of this government shutdown because scientific advancements to solve the malady of CC is not considered essential.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40656 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Name names, dates,.. otherwise you are an annoying liar..
You posted the same tale more than once.. as if you could pass the smell test; you don't so far.
LOL everyone??
LOL at you?

Sure!

Hypocrite.
Mothra

Phoenix, AZ

#40657 Oct 13, 2013
Joe wrote:
My great grandfather used to record temps back in 1920-1935. He said they drank wine and often made up temps for the log book. He said it was "close enough" for government work. Said everyone did it.
As you've already seen, what you've offered is anecdotal evidence and the science "purists" here will dismiss it out of hand.

That's what they do.

Never mind that the reality of how temperature measurements were made back whenever, and by whomever, and under any ol' circumstance, they have to a "scientific" report before your offering is worth any consideration at all.

But before they actually read the report, they'll first seek to discount it by a verification of the author, the publication and the funding sources.

Having passed those measures, then comes the "peer review" hurdle, which moves depending on a variety of factors, which they'll decide later.

Whew!

And then possibly if you've met their even increasing standards of acceptable evidence, they trot out an contrary study from their ever increasing vault and announce yours is wrong, because they have a "consensus" behind them.

They're quite comfortable with the closed loop they've created.

That's just what they do.

That's what they call "science".

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#40658 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
These deniers are out touch with reality.. crazy people are posting in topix..
The deniers visit foreign climes and report the facts. The Maldives are beautiful, the sea life abounds. They import fossil fuel; they don't use solar panels or wind turbines.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40659 Oct 13, 2013
Mothra wrote:
<quoted text>
As you've already seen, what you've offered is anecdotal evidence and the science "purists" here will dismiss it out of hand.
That's what they do.
Never mind that the reality of how temperature measurements were made back whenever, and by whomever, and under any ol' circumstance, they have to a "scientific" report before your offering is worth any consideration at all.
But before they actually read the report, they'll first seek to discount it by a verification of the author, the publication and the funding sources.
Having passed those measures, then comes the "peer review" hurdle, which moves depending on a variety of factors, which they'll decide later.
Whew!
And then possibly if you've met their even increasing standards of acceptable evidence, they trot out an contrary study from their ever increasing vault and announce yours is wrong, because they have a "consensus" behind them.
They're quite comfortable with the closed loop they've created.
That's just what they do.
That's what they call "science".
Excellent analysis of the AGW conspiracy, also referred to as "the rigors of scientific inquiry".

Does not affect the FACTs that global warming is real, we are causing it, and there are things we can do about it.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#40660 Oct 13, 2013
Anti Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You sick mother F*****!!! You are suggesting that you learned your perversions from "family movies"?
That is why you desire to F*** K_____ in the A***???
Perhaps you might try exercising you right to bear arms and play a game called R______ R_______!
This thread has them thar hilljack fellars, thems sic sum beeches.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40661 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
names include personal, government, and location names..
Still waiting for its long list of names... of "everyone'"s..

BWAHAHAHA

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#40662 Oct 13, 2013
OzRitz wrote:
<quoted text>
With Places like Antarctica there are few countries that have aircraft capable of bringing stuff in & out. There is only a small window in the southern summer to do it so lots of researchers hitch a ride with the US. In other words there will be a year of data lost on tea party BS and in the end what do they achieve ? Not a damn thing except drive those positive growth numbers backwards.
http://www.livescience.com/40237-antarctic-re...
if over a decade of not warming doesn't mean anything....how important can one year be in the big scheme of things? Besides...I doubt the data and observations will be lost. I bet warmists would probably wish that with the current direction of climate though.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#40663 Oct 13, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You think words analyze climate phenomena.. hahahahaha
How come they don't hire you to teach climate science?
haha. And I guess you could do a better job than the other poster, son??
Maybe you could teach a class on the Nobel Prize selection committee?
You would be just as lost and clueless I'm sure!!
Bwaaaaaahhhhaaaa
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#40664 Oct 13, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>if over a decade of not warming doesn't mean anything....how important can one year be in the big scheme of things? Besides...I doubt the data and observations will be lost. I bet warmists would probably wish that with the current direction of climate though.
You must not be reading the wisdom from Less Fact More Tripe, the last decade was only noise. As was the decade before that, and the decade before that, and ...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40665 Oct 13, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>haha. And I guess you could do a better job than the other poster, son??
Maybe you could teach a class on the Nobel Prize selection committee?
You would be just as lost and clueless I'm sure!!
Bwaaaaaahhhhaaaa
LOL. You started a war in one post and lost it promptly.

I'm RIGHT.. you are WRONG..

BWAHAHAHAHA

P.S. Why do you beat a dead horse? That makes you dead WRONG. RIP.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40666 Oct 13, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not be reading the wisdom from Less Fact More Tripe, the last decade was only noise. As was the decade before that, and the decade before that, and ...
.. you are incorrect.

So "no warming" then equals noise. You are NOISE!

LOL.

“Let's X Change!!”

Since: Feb 09

B4 HOPE Is Gone...

#40667 Oct 14, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. You started a war in one post and lost it promptly.
I'm RIGHT.. you are WRONG..
BWAHAHAHAHA
P.S. Why do you beat a dead horse? That makes you dead WRONG. RIP.
if you're "right" then you should have no problem showing evidence that the Nobel committee recognizes Mann as one of its award recipients.

You can at least do that before declaring who is right or wrong, son, no?
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40668 Oct 14, 2013
Christine Dell'Amore

National Geographic

Published October 2, 2013

An estimated ten thousand Pacific walruses have huddled together on a remote island in the Chukchi Sea (map), an unusual phenomenon that's due to a lack of sea ice, experts say.

The giant marine mammal is known to "haul out"—literally haul its body onto ice or land to rest or warm up—on various places along the Arctic coast.

But with the Arctic warming up and melting much of its floating ice, there are limited areas for the walruses to gather. This forces them to cluster on land in huge aggregations rarely before seen.(See more walrus pictures.)

In 2011, 30,000 walruses hauled out along a stretch of beach less than a mile long, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which took aerial pictures of the most recent walrus gathering.

Scientists first noted that such large terrestrial haulouts along Alaska's coast in 2007 and reports have increased in the past five years, said Pam Tuomi, senior veterinarian at the Alaska SeaLife Center in Seward.

That mirrors the effect of warming temperatures in the Arctic, which is in the throes of a "long-term, downward trend" in sea ice cover, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

the large haulouts are putting individual animals at risk. For one, if something like an airplane flying overhead spooks one of the mammals, it may spark a stampede into the water. During their panic, the heavy animals—which can weigh up to 1.5 tons (1.4 metric tons)—may trample other walruses to death, especially young ones, she said.
gcaveman1

Laurel, MS

#40669 Oct 14, 2013
So who gives a shit about the baby walruses? They're big and ugly, too.

It's a sign, idiot.

A sign of a dying world. Not ours. Theirs.

If we see these top-of-the-foodchain animals threatened as well as polar bears, we should take note that these are the highest predators in the region.

Other than Man. Who might be the next top predator to go.

Whether we see it as a sign for ourselves is the question.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 14 min TSM 1,126,362
last post wins! (Apr '13) 43 min Concerned_American 352
Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel (Jun '08) 49 min JOEL 70,085
Hoffa tells Chicago Teamsters they play pivotal... 1 hr reality is a crutch 1
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 1 hr Yumpin Yimminy 68,653
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 1 hr Grand Birther 179,351
A young black kid asks his mother, "Mama what's... 1 hr LittlejigsRPigs 11
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]