Scientists say they have proved climate change is real, now mus...

[tina anne]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
For purposes of this forum it is a hypothetical exercise, as you well know. What your "some experts" (which might be an interesting and revealing investigation in itself, I'm sure) propose will happen in 10 years or a hundred has no effect on the static numbers.
Whether it is a pie pan, a test tube or a Slurpee cup - the point is that you intimated that the depth of a partially filled container has a bearing on the height of liquid that is added. That is erroneous. If you are talking about oceanic volume and thermal expansion, then fine - we might also calculate what additional rise could occur from oceanic warming, how those temperature changes will affect currents, how those currents affect weather, how weather affects climatology - and so on... Regardless, those factors were not your assertion. You were simply and clearly overwhelmed with the depth of the basins and overlaid that as an agent when in the limited scope of THIS specific strain of the topic it is actually a non sequitur. Bear in mind as well that the ice melt is FRESH water and because of density and temperature difference it will tend to mix above the thermocline.

The shape of that container also affects the level. The more the sides tilt out the more water it will take to raise it to the next level. Also you talk about calculating the amount of rise for thermal expansion while ignoring the amount of heat it would take to create your thermal expansion. Which is to say a generous amount of heat. That is why you hear so little about thermal expansion now. To generate any increase you would also have to heat the deeper parts of the ocean. Otherwise they would keep the water above from warming all that much.

As for those experts, those who have actually run the numbers and then tested them in the real world. They have the rise about 30 mm whic converts to 3 centimeters or 1.18 inches. Of course those who want to gain the public's attention make predictions that claim far more. Funny thing is those prediction in ten years are forgotton by most and laught at by the few who remember.

[tina anne]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
They have risen. Missed the posts by a Steve guy how he questions why the data is SHOWING them rising.
You are such a bad liar.

Am I, funny thing is you compare past claims with what actually happened it seems like I am right again. The oceans are rising about 3.2 mm a year. Of course for a few years there was nothing.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warmin...

[PHD]

Walloped, walloped, walloped all day long the wallop10 gets walloped again and again.

[ChromiuMan]

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The shape of that container also affects the level. The more the sides tilt out the more water it will take to raise it to the next level. Also you talk about calculating the amount of rise for thermal expansion while ignoring the amount of heat it would take to create your thermal expansion. Which is to say a generous amount of heat. That is why you hear so little about thermal expansion now. To generate any increase you would also have to heat the deeper parts of the ocean. Otherwise they would keep the water above from warming all that much.
As for those experts, those who have actually run the numbers and then tested them in the real world. They have the rise about 30 mm whic converts to 3 centimeters or 1.18 inches. Of course those who want to gain the public's attention make predictions that claim far more. Funny thing is those prediction in ten years are forgotton by most and laught at by the few who remember.

Yes, a cylinder, a pie pan or an erlenmeyer flask will all display different levels of rise. I also understand that atmospheric rise in temperature does not readily conduct heat to the depths of the basins - or even to beneath the thermocline. That is of little consequence to the discussion.
PRECISELY which experts do you reference? Those who you seek out in support of your foregone conclusions? You might well consider changing your fields of comment to theology.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

[litesong]

litesong wrote:
You posted on a climate change forum, as if snow & cold disprove AGW. You got called on your idiocy, I told you the mechanism for the snow that was AGW derived, & now you're in a (snow) flurry of an upset.
You are a silly goose.
//////////
'small ugly town' wrote:
But you are mistaken,..... I do not post on such forums.
//////////
litesong wrote:
........ as 'small ugly town' posts on a forum called,'Scientists say they have proved climate change is real'........

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote:
You posted on a climate change forum, as if snow & cold disprove AGW. You got called on your idiocy, I told you the mechanism for the snow that was AGW derived, & now you're in a (snow) flurry of an upset.
You are a silly goose.
//////////
'small ugly town' wrote:
But you are mistaken,..... I do not post on such forums.
//////////
litesong wrote:
........ as 'small ugly town' posts on a forum called,'Scientists say they have proved climate change is real'........

In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

[litesong]

phud fetid feces face fiend wrote:

...... you think....

...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

[litesong]

'phud fetid feces face fiend' flubbed:
...... you think....
litesong wrote:
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

'phud fetid feces face fiend' flubbed:
...... you think....
litesong wrote:
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

[litesong]

phud fetid feces face fiend' flubbed:
...... you think....
//////////
litesong wrote:
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

phud fetid feces face fiend' flubbed:
...... you think....
//////////
litesong wrote:
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.

[SpaceBlues]

litesong wrote:

phud fetid feces face fiend' flubbed:
...... you think....
//////////
litesong wrote:
...... that "phud fetid feces face fiend" can't think.

You are right, again!

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>You are right, again!

Yes you did get on correct this time.Are you on the raod to recovery?

[tina anne]

ChromiuMan wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, a cylinder, a pie pan or an erlenmeyer flask will all display different levels of rise. I also understand that atmospheric rise in temperature does not readily conduct heat to the depths of the basins - or even to beneath the thermocline. That is of little consequence to the discussion.
PRECISELY which experts do you reference? Those who you seek out in support of your foregone conclusions? You might well consider changing your fields of comment to theology.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

Actually the thermocline has much to do when talking about thermal expansion. And the slope also has much to do with those numbers that are in your factsheet. Which had some errors. For example, they stated that the rate of rise is one to two millimeters a year when the CU has it at 3.2 mm a year. They also mention some of their predictions are based on shore lines from past interglacierals and they missed the fact that the land has risen since then.

The numbers for the Greenland Ice sheet was pulled from the IPCC AR4 which were later discovered to be so far off that within three years it had departed from the model. The simple fact that if Greenland Ice sheet was to melt right this second the resulting tidal wave might reach six meters in NYC but the resulting water level would only be a millimeter or two higher.

Or to put it this way. The entire Greenland Ice Sheet would only double the rate of rise for one year if it melted in one year. If you add thermo expansion into the equasion it would not even do that for the first year since that much cold water would if anything cause the reverse of thermal expansion for that year.

As for the subject of theology, have you considered druidism. After all, your beliefs would fit well into that belief system.

[PHD]

Druidism, would that be another form of scientific science fiction?

[Wallop10]

Gee ChromiuMAn quotes USGS

"Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level.

Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level. Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3). "

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

and Tina quotes... effectively Rush Limbaugh or the like. Right wingers don't need physics....

[Wallop10]

PHD wrote:

Druidism, would that be another form of scientific science fiction?

Yeah, Tina's kind.
Yours too!

[PHD]

Wallop10 wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, Tina's kind.
Yours too!

More BS from the commander TROLL!!!

[tina anne]

Wallop10 wrote:

Gee ChromiuMAn quotes USGS
"Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level.
Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level. Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3). "
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/
and Tina quotes... effectively Rush Limbaugh or the like. Right wingers don't need physics....

Based on the IPCC model which was discovered in error in 2009. The model left out shore line gradient and had the amount of water far higher than the volume of ice could contain. They also forgot that water expands when it freezes and ice contracts when it melts.

Or in other words, when you run the actual numbers the amount if rise is only a few millimeters and not the meters.

While it nice to see that you are looking for more sources you should also double check you sources. Just because the government posted it does not mean it is right. After all, those people are human as well.