Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I take it then we can all agree that methods used to determine trends in pre-historic climate and temperature are good only for trending and not for direct comparison with modern times .

I also take it that no accurate measurements of temperature existed before the widespread use of thermometers .

This leaves us with a modern problem : how to measure the earth's temperature so as to accurately measure change . Previously we have measured the temperature where people live or move through . A proper experiment would determine where to place temp sense probes as a starting point . It would then determine how often to measure temp . It would then determine how long a cycle of measurement should be to eliminate non-causal variation . It should be run several times .

Clearly this has not been done let alone done accurately or we would not have the ridiculous predictions that the Earth would now, today, be many degrees hotter than it actually is . If this was a properly conducted science experiment then we would measure input and measure the result in an isolated environment as possible to eliminate other variables . This raises the problem that many of the variables can not and should not be eliminated as they have a direct effect on temperature .

If we use temperature change as a function of CO2, the results are zero . No temperature rise .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Climate Change isn't just about temperature.

But you are correct: we can't compare anything as it is seen, measured, viewed, felt, ... ... ..., today to something ten, hundred, thousand, million years ago.

That's why any scientific method in any scientific field tries to "adjust" historic periods and what happened there to today's knowledge. (And the latter can be outdated tomorrow.)

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Yep . They build a program, put into it what happened in the past, and try to predict the future . Every time they say "Look everyone ! A computer ! You know how clever they are, therefore GW must be true !" Then the predictions fail . They search and search and realise they left out a major feature . They never stop to consider the data is wrong in the first place . Without any embarrassment or pause from being wrong, they then make the predictions over again .

The first modeling left out water vapour . Thats right, water vapour...the substance far more important than CO2 for producing GW . They left it out because they didnt have the data . Then they say they are right but are wrong because they didnt get correct the amount of heat the oceans would store . And on it goes, constantly revising a model that was super accurate when they started according to them, all the while they hysterically shout its the end of the world you must do what we say because we are right .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

That doesn't change the fact that Climate Change isn't just about temperature and when thermometers were invented as you lectured previously.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Ooops. Sorry: the earth's warming of course is related to temperature. My bad, I always think of climate change and not just and only about the warming.

0 Replies

Looks like gungasnaKKKe is wrong again. As usual.

Quote:

© Provided by IBT US
antarctic In 2002, two-thirds of the Larsen B Ice Shelf, located along the east coast of the Antarctic Peninsula, collapsed in a span of less than six weeks. According to a new NASA study, the remains of this ancient structure, which has existed for over 10,000 years, are likely to disintegrate completely before the end of the decade -- an event that would significantly contribute to global sea level rise. “These are warning signs that the remnant is disintegrating,” Ala Khazendar from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, who led the study, said in a statement. “Although it’s fascinating scientifically to have a front-row seat to watch the ice shelf becoming unstable and breaking up, it’s bad news for our planet.”

Several recent studies have spotted an uptick in the melting of Antarctica’s floating ice shelves, which act as doorstops and hold back its glaciers and ice sheets from spreading outward into oceans. In some regions, the thickness of these shelves has fallen by as much as 18 percent over the past 18 years -- a process that has accelerated over the last decade.According to the predictions by Khazendar’s team, which used the data collected as part of NASA’s Operation IceBridge, widening cracks along the shelf’s grounding line would eventually lead to the Larsen B remnant breaking off completely from the Peninsula. This free-floating chunk -- about 625 square miles in area and about 1,640 feet thick at its thickest point -- would then shatter into hundreds of smaller icebergs.

© Provided by IBT US
Larsen B “What is really surprising about Larsen B is how quickly the changes are taking place,” Khazendar said in the statement. The fastest moving part of the Flask Glacier, one of the shelf’s tributary glaciers, had accelerated 36 percent between 2002 and 2012. “Change has been relentless,” he said.According to some estimates, if Antarctica’s ice sheet melts completely, it would raise sea levels by over 200 feet -- enough to flood the planet's land masses. Although this is not something that is likely to happen anytime soon, the latest observation is one of the many pointing toward a warming trend on the continent.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

Quote:

if Antarctica’s ice sheet melts completely, it would raise sea levels by over 200 feet -

This looks like bullshit. I need to see the math.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

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

Quote:

It covers an area of almost 14 million square km (5.4 million sq. miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic km of ice[2] (6.36 million cubic miles).

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

Quote:

The area of the World Ocean is about 361.9 million square kilometers (139.7 million square miles

6.36/139.7 x 5280 = 240 feet

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It is bullshit . They fudge the Math right from the start . They exaggerate the amount of ice, especially in the Greenland ice sheet by overstating the depth by area . They then fail to take into account that as sea levels rise they will require even more water to go out further because the area will increase significantly .

2 Replies

@Ionus,

How many millions of square miles of ocean front property are you claiming will be lost when the ocean rises 100 feet?

The math says you are talking bull ****. If we assume that volume of ice on Antarctica is correct (there is no reason not to believe it is) and the entire globe is the same height we would still see a 170 foot rise over the entire globe.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

They exaggerate the amount of ice, especially in the Greenland ice sheet by overstating the depth by area .

Greenland is situated in the Arctic region not in Antarctica.

(If the entire 2,850,000 cubic kilometres of ice of the Greenland Ice Sheet were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m.)[Source: Naalakkersuisut website]

1 Reply

@parados,

You are no mathematician . The assumption as to the amount of ice on the Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves is ludicrously high . They measure the deepest part and apply it where they want . Where is the adjustment for mountains and slopes under the ice ? These assumptions as to the amount the oceans will rise is not only based on an incorrect excessive amount of ice, it doesnt take into account the amount the surface area will increase as the water rises .

Show us your stunning ability at maths again...you know, the math that says I am talking bullshit... Very Happy

Currently your math has the water rising straight up ! Is your real name Moses ?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

Greenland is situated in the Arctic region not in Antarctica.

Yes .

1 Reply

@Ionus,

And why did you mention it when responding to melting ice in Antarctica?

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Because the ice in the Arctic, in particular the Greenland ice sheet, is usually included in any discussion of rising sea levels . Why wouldnt it be included ?

1 Reply

@Ionus,

You responded to:

Quote:

And not to the questions you are posing now.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

Who is doing this, you or me ? I am waiting for the right time ...seeing you are impatient, most of the sea ice in the Arctic and the Antarctic will melt at some time in the future and will not affect sea level . The land ice on the Antarctic and Greenland land masses will affect sea level if it rises . I want to see what people think is a fair thing and see if they come up with the right numbers .

I also mentioned Greenland because someone would have at some stage, especially as all the doom and gloom of the Antarctic ice melting is impossible .

0 Replies

@Ionus,

ROFLMAO....

No, they don't measure the deepest part. They do complete mapping of the ground under the ice.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-21692423

My math hardly had the water rising straight up.
I also did math showing the ENTIRE surface of the earth. That isn't raising straight up. That is covering every inch of land which we know isn't going to happen.

If Antarctic ice complete melts it will raise the oceans somewhere between 170 and 240 feet depending on how much coast line is lost. That fails to include the increase in volume just based on the raise in water temperature which would cause expansion.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No, they don't measure the deepest part. They do complete mapping of the ground under the ice.

That started already in 1930/31 during one of Alfred Wegener's Greenland expeditions.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

No, they don't measure the deepest part. They do complete mapping of the ground under the ice.

Are you ROFLMAO....at yourself ?? COMPLETE mapping...there are areas man has never been in Antarctica . Do you understand the word estimate ? Antarctica is 14,000,000 km² and they used 25 million individual survey points . Or 1.8 for every km² . Lets say 2 as there are mountains sticking up out of the ice . They measured one point per half a square kilometer and ASSUMED it was an average depth . It isnt too hard to visualise most places on the planet changing drastically in height over that area . This is almost as much fun as the time you insisted the data didnt have to be accurate .

As for measuring the deepest part..that is exactly what they did in the past and assumed an even slope up to the shallowest part .

Have they done this "accuracy" of mapping for Greenland ? That's the one you GW Thuggees usually cite as melting because no one thinks the Antarctic will melt .

Quote:

If Antarctic ice complete melts it will raise the oceans somewhere between 170 and 240 feet depending on how much coast line is lost.

Which of your GW Thuggee friends said it was going to melt ? Are you making stuff up AGAIN ? Even the doom and gloom GW sites dont think it will melt .

Quote:

My math hardly had the water rising straight up.
I also did math showing the ENTIRE surface of the earth. That isn't raising straight up. That is covering every inch of land which we know isn't going to happen.

Is it your hope I will grow tired of your stupidity and quit ? Go read your post again and see where you said the surface of the oceans of the world, NOT the entire surface of the earth..or do you think we are all living in an octopuses garden ? Better still, I will quote you :

Quote:

It covers an area of almost 14 million square km (5.4 million sq. miles) and contains 26.5 million cubic km of ice[2] (6.36 million cubic miles).
The area of the World Ocean is about 361.9 million square kilometers (139.7 million square miles
6.36/139.7 x 5280 = 240 feet

??? Any comment ? Still say your math hardly had the water rising straight up ? For every mm up the surface area will increase yet you have used only the starting surface area . As areas are flooded, the surface area will increase sideways . Still think your math can handle it ?

Quote:

That fails to include the increase in volume just based on the raise in water temperature which would cause expansion.

You should get someone to help you, I am finding it difficult to type in between fits of laughter . Do you imagine the earth's oceans are one temperature ? That they will expand ? Has your math calculated the amount of heat it would take if it was possible ?

2 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know