News Scientists jumping off the warming train

[Evo]

Locally to Greenland this is true. I'd think it might tend to cancel out to a small extent - maybe even a very small extent - the rise.

But keep in mind that the local rise in sea bed around Greenland - the Earth being plastic will deform non-uniformly wouldn't you think and will displace sea water to the rest of world oceans in addition to the melt water off the landmass.

Yes, and the water will run off at a much faster rate than the land will rise, and I would assume that the impact of the eventual rise of land will be a negligible impact. What a lot of people don't realize is that while sea level rises in some places, it drops in others, there is no uniform worldwide rise or fall of sea level. Land can be breached and water spill over and create vast inland seas and lakes. I don't believe there are any projections for this happening just from Greenland ice melt, now you're going to make me try to find the maps of proposed scenarios, or you could be forever dear to my heart and find them for me. I find it a very interesting topic.

I feel rather safe here in Kansas.

 

[Evo]

Using this logic, wouldn't the increased mass of the ocean force all land masses up as the sea sinks?

No, the land that was covered by ice will rise as the weight of the ice is removed. The sea isn't sinking.

 

[LowlyPion]

Using this logic, wouldn't the increased mass of the ocean force all land masses up as the sea sinks?

Why? If you were compressing the globe uniformly by the added melt - spread out over the surface of the oceans what actual net force do you figure can really be affected?

The Greenland Ice Sheet I'd think is more analogous to pressing a balloon at one point and affecting locally a plastic deformation from true round. Whatever resiliency of the crust to tend back toward a sphere when the ice mass melts you'd think would affect some change more locally to Greenland and the surrounding sea bed, and not so generally to pushing all land masses skyward.

 

[drankin]

No, the land that was covered by ice will rise as the weight of the ice is removed. The sea isn't sinking.

I really don't know but just thinking of moving mass from A (land) to B (ocean) that there would be an impact on the ocean floor depth though not as significant as sea level rise. Interesting that the land actually rises when the ice is removed. How much rise has been observed?

 

[LowlyPion]

Land can be breached and water spill over and create vast inland seas and lakes.

The spill at the Bosporus into the Black Sea and the cataract there would have been a truly wondrous sight while it lasted. And who knows, speaking highly speculatively, but maybe at Gibraltar into the Mediterranean before it at some point.

 

[Proton Soup]

since the amount of water the atmosphere can hold increases with temperature, does anyone know how much of this melt water would end up in the atmosphere? and with more in the atmosphere, you'd expect more precipitation, increasing the amount of water stored on land. surely it can't all be allocated to rising sea levels.

 

[LowlyPion]

I think that's a complicated issue about how much additional water would be airborne or residing in lakes and streams. My sense of it is that it would be swamped by the amount of additional water melted.

The Greenland Ice Sheet is a vast body of ice covering 1.71 million km², roughly 80% of the surface of Greenland. It is the second largest ice body in the World, after the Antarctic Ice Sheet. The ice sheet is almost 2,400 kilometers long in a north-south direction, and its greatest width is 1,100 kilometers at a latitude of 77° N, near its northern margin. The mean altitude of the ice is 2,135 meters. The thickness is generally more than 2 km (see picture) and over 3 km at its thickest point. It is not the only ice mass of Greenland - isolated glaciers and small ice caps cover between 76,000 and 100,000 square kilometers around the periphery. Some scientists believe that global warming may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years. If the entire 2.85 million km³ of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft).

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

That's a lot of ice.

Interestingly some of the ice is held on Greenland below sea level - up to 300m below. If all the water melts there Greenland may become an archipelago. But before anyone gets all 4th grader with ice cubes in a glass analogies, there's still roughly 2 km of ice above sea level.

 

[Evo]

But just think, if all of the ice melts, we will return to a lush, forested, green, healthy earth, as in the past. It's really not bad for the planet. People living on the coastlines might not be too happy. New species will flourish, as they did during those cycles in the past.

What I dislike about the hype is that so many people think the Earth is being destroyed. I dislike deception for any reason, no matter how good some people's intentions are. Ask just about any young school age child and they will tell you that global warming means the world will end. A co-worker's wife is a science teacher at a local middle school and the things these kids believe to be true is appalling.

What we should be focused on is that we are running out of fossil fuels and we need to find alternative sources, and preferably sources that don't cause more pollution, or destroy more resources.

 

[Proton Soup]

also, it will take that ice a long time to melt. in the meantime, we people will just keep on doing what we're doing, fighting back nature. it's not like we've conquered it. we'll just make a gradual migration to wherever the conditions are better.

 

[drankin]

also, it will take that ice a long time to melt. in the meantime, we people will just keep on doing what we're doing, fighting back nature. it's not like we've conquered it. we'll just make a gradual migration to wherever the conditions are better.

We've been doing it for thousands of years and will be for thousands more. I think we could use a little more of a tropical climate anyway. Also, with all this ice gone, we will have more fertile land to habitate and farm. I see it as a win-win.

 

[LowlyPion]

What I dislike about the hype is that so many people think the Earth is being destroyed.

I don't entirely disagree. Evolution has brought us to this point in time through waves of selection and cycles Shiva and Vishnu. And surely we worry about a lot of species going extinct, and maybe needlessly so, as we stand already on the bones of so many millions of species already.

My species extinction concerns are really more directed at the canary in the coal mine. That the environment is changing and how much of that is due to us. And of course is it possible that we may be unwittingly driving climate toward our own extinction, or nearly as bad, dramatic population reduction - at great misery no doubt - to life on a considerably more environmentally hostile planet.

And yes environmentally clean and renewable is the greatest heritage we can likely leave those that follow us.

 

[Evo]

My species extinction concerns are really more directed at the canary in the coal mine. That the environment is changing and how much of that is due to us. And of course is it possible that we may be unwittingly driving climate toward our own extinction, or nearly as bad, dramatic population reduction - at great misery no doubt - to life on a considerably more environmentally hostile planet.

Yeah, and this is where my misanthropic side shows. It may not be pleasant to humans, if the worst case scenarious come true, but I'm not convinced that will be the case. I tend to take a bit of each side with a grain of salt. Two extreme agendas, the truth lies somewhere in between.

 

[lisab]

What I dislike about the hype is that so many people think the Earth is being destroyed. I dislike deception for any reason, no matter how good some people's intentions are. Ask just about any young school age child and they will tell you that global warming means the world will end. A co-worker's wife is a science teacher at a local middle school and the things these kids believe to be true is appalling.

I totally agree. I get a chill up my spine when I observe how some people consider AGW dogma. And they're scientists, no less.

 

[WarPhalange]

I think we could use a little more of a tropical climate anyway.

I don't know how this will change things, but I don't think people living near the equator want a warmer climate.

Also, with all this ice gone, we will have more fertile land to habitate and farm. I see it as a win-win.

What do you think is going to happen to this ice? It doesn't just disappear, it turns into water. Higher sea levels = less habitable land. How much of a return we get on ice melted vs. coast lost I can't say, but it's definitely not a 100% win.

 

[mheslep]

...What I dislike about the hype is that so many people think the Earth is being destroyed. I dislike deception for any reason, no matter how good some people's intentions are. Ask just about any young school age child and they will tell you that global warming means the world will end. A co-worker's wife is a science teacher at a local middle school and the things these kids believe to be true is appalling.

What we should be focused on is that we are running out of fossil fuels and we need to find alternative sources, and preferably sources that don't cause more pollution, or destroy more resources.

nice post, +1

 

[Andre]

In addition to Evo's excellent wrap up, as discussed here, here, and especially here, there is no certainty whatsoever that more or less greenhouse gas is going to change anything about climate, especially given that large climate changes happened without clear relevance to greenhouse gasses. I mean, we must do the right things for the right reasons and the right thing is to reach a sustainable balance between nature and society, without worrying about the things that either don't matter or that we can't control and there is no way to control climate.

Therefore the stop-burning-fuel-and-save-the-climate hype is most unfortunate and will bounce whenever reality catches up and proves otherwise. The real thing should be: stop-burning-fuel-and-convert-to-a-sustainable-society-balanced-with-nature. That ideal can never be overrun by harsh reality.

Meanwhile, people get into bitter fights over this because of not understanding each other

 

[Borek]

Using this logic, wouldn't the increased mass of the ocean force all land masses up as the sea sinks?

That's not completely off when you think about it. Imagine a baloon filled with the air. When you press the baloon at some place, baloon surface in other places goes up, to keep constant internal volume. That's to some extent similar situation. When the sea gets deeper it puts more pressure on the bottom, building additional pressure that may push land masses up.

We are probably talking about effect measured in centimeters, but it can still work to some extent.

 

[Borek]

Also, with all this ice gone, we will have more fertile land to habitate and farm. I see it as a win-win.

When I imagine all political and social tensions connected with the relocation of people from parts of the globe (like Africa) to other parts of the globe (Siberia?) I think it is a lose-lose.

 

[Phrak]

Interesting, but I don't think this sheds any light on the truth behind global warming.

In my opinion, both sides of the global warming debate have become so politicized that neither can be trusted.

What would this tell you about actuality? But you think the muddy waters begins with politics. It begins with fraudulent science--data padding, model selection, peer pressure, vatican (authoritarian) science, and better.

I remember postmodernism, progressivism, revisionism, relativism, Alan Sokal and The Science Wars. They didn't go away; they sulked a bit and invented new causes.

 

[mheslep]

That's not completely off when you think about it. Imagine a baloon filled with the air. When you press the baloon at some place, baloon surface in other places goes up, to keep constant internal volume. That's to some extent similar situation. When the sea gets deeper it puts more pressure on the bottom, building additional pressure that may push land masses up.

Yes though the Earth balloon is crusty here, fluid over there. The crusty part does seem to rise up and down too, though usually some orders of magnitude slower than the ocean part of the Earth balloon, this difference in rate apparently allowing the http://www.awi.de/typo3temp/pics/91b26f7eef.jpg" , 3-4x times the worst case sea level rise associated with the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.

 

[LowlyPion]

An exception: the http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080605-andes-mountains.html", 3-4x times the worst case sea level rise associated with the melting of Greenland's ice sheet.

But I think that's an upthrust at a subduction zone at the South American plate boundary and an oceanic plate. It was likely accompanied by some rather dramatic quakes and slips as it piled up. Plates just have a different gear than water melt.

 

[mheslep]

... Plates just have a different gear than water melt.

Yes, as I said.

 

[pentazoid]

But just think, if all of the ice melts, we will return to a lush, forested, green, healthy earth, as in the past. It's really not bad for the planet. People living on the coastlines might not be too happy. New species will flourish, as they did during those cycles in the past.

What I dislike about the hype is that so many people think the Earth is being destroyed. I dislike deception for any reason, no matter how good some people's intentions are. Ask just about any young school age child and they will tell you that global warming means the world will end. A co-worker's wife is a science teacher at a local middle school and the things these kids believe to be true is appalling.

What we should be focused on is that we are running out of fossil fuels and we need to find alternative sources, and preferably sources that don't cause more pollution, or destroy more resources.

I really don't think we are running out of oil:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/we-are-not-running-out-of-oil

...These estimates do not include unconventional oil resources that require additional processing to extract liquid petroleum. Oil production from tar sands in Canada and South America would add about 600 billion barrels to the world’s supply and rocks found in the three western states of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming alone contain 1,500 billion barrels of oil. Worldwide, the oil-shale reserves could be as large as 14,000 billion barrels — more than 500 years of oil supply at year 2000 production rates.

It is true that in the long run, an economy that utilizes petroleum as a primary energy source is not sustainable. However, sustainability is a chimera. Every technology since the birth of civilization has been replaced as people devised better and more efficient technologies. The history of energy use is largely one of substitution. From wood and whale oil in the 19th century, to coal by the 1890s. Coal remained the world’s largest source of energy until the 1960s. ...

And according to Peter Huber, author of The bottomless well, the tar sands in Alberta Canada alone have enough oil supply to provide the rest of the planet for over the next course of 100 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572

 

[mheslep]

I really don't think we are running out of oil:
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/we-are-not-running-out-of-oil
And according to Peter Huber, author of The bottomless well, the tar sands in Alberta Canada alone have enough oil supply to provide the rest of the planet for over the next course of 100 years.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1954572

I think that is probably correct; just as the stone age did not end because of stone depletion, the oil age will not end because the last drop of oil has been pumped. The oil age will end because the cost of oil based energy is bound to increase as the easy to get oil depletes. For instance, these other sources mentioned above - sand, shale - require additional energy to break the oil free from the minerals containing it. Then, since the cost must be high, continuing to use oil as we have means straining the wallet and all the while supporting what would otherwise be failed petro states. Second, though I am far from convinced that the science of global warming is at the point where its predictions command immediate action, the world is none the less burning up one cubic mile of oil every year and releasing the combustion products into the atmosphere. That to my mind warrants caution, so that I favor using alternatives any time they are economically viable.

Edit: EIA shows world oil production has been hovering at 84 to 85 m bbl / day for the last 4-5 years. T. Boone says he expects it to stay there.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/STEO_Query/steotables.cfm?tableNumber=6&periodType=Annual&startYear=1994&startMonth=1&startMonthChanged=false&startQuarter=1&startQuarterChanged=false&endYear=2009&endMonth=12&endMonthChanged=false&endQuarter=4&endQuarterChanged=false&noScroll=false&loadAction=Apply+Changes

 

[Skyhunter]

There are relatively few scientists that dispute AGW.
The most prominent Lindzen, Spencer. and Pielke all accept the view that CO2 is contributing to a warming trend.

 

[mheslep]

There are relatively few scientists that dispute AGW.

A rather broad statement given this summer's APS statement:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.

[my highlight]
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

The most prominent Lindzen, Spencer. and Pielke all accept the view that CO2 is contributing to a warming trend.

I am unaware of any scientists at all, anywhere, that dispute the basic idea of greenhouse gas warming from CO2, methane, or other such greenhouse gases. So? The size of the IPCC temperature rise statements are primarily based on feed-backs and secondary / follow-on effects. It is the process by which IPCC came to these assertions, especially in the feed back domain, that has drawn increasing criticism, most notably from those you named. The number of such critics constitute a 'considerable presence' and, at least per the OP, is growing.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm
An article regarding the report mentioned in the OP along with brief comments and biographical information from some of the scientists who have changed sides.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Going to http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/scientists/, you will find the list of 700+ reputable scientists that have found evolutionary theory to be less than a scientifically proven fact...

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/is_there_scientific_dissent_from_darwinian_evolution

List
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Okay, I'm a convert now. 700 scientists and engineers can't be wrong.

 

[LowlyPion]

I remain curious as to what bucket of warm cushy science these scientists are jumping into from the AGW Sunset Limited? Or is their departure based more on some political or economic calculus?

For instance is this what lemmings are thinking as they are free falling into the sea? "The 700 geniuses ahead of me can't be wrong?"

 

[Evo]

http://sayanythingblog.com/readers/entry/is_there_scientific_dissent_from_darwinian_evolution

List
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660

Okay, I'm a convert now. 700 scientists and engineers can't be wrong.

Excellent point to show why people shouldn't mindlessly accept some supposed "concensus" among pro-warming scientists.

 

[LowlyPion]

At 2:15 in "Engineers are divided about what caused ..."

Maybe they should have taken a vote before it happened?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxTZ446tbzE

 

[Evo]

That was amazing that was caught on film. I don't get the crowd of people calmly walking away with the bridge moving like that behind them. I would have been watching it.

 

[LowlyPion]

That was amazing that was caught on film. I don't get the crowd of people calmly walking away with the bridge moving like that behind them. I would have been watching it.

After it was built the bridge had shown signs of resonance at milder wind speeds. And in fact it had become a bit of a local sport to drive over the bridge when it was "galloping" like that. There had been some months of warning about the problem. I suppose that people had gotten used to it.

 

[Phrak]

There are relatively few scientists that dispute AGW.
The most prominent Lindzen, Spencer. and Pielke all accept the view that CO2 is contributing to a warming trend.

And who promoted these three birds?

 

[O2Polluter]

Current CO2 levels absorb what percent of the black body radiation of the Earth being reflected back into space in the 2, 3 and 15angstrom range? If the answer is 100% then there is no way CO2, no matter the concentration, can contribute to any increase in warming? Simple end of debate. Does the Hadley, MSU, NOAA or other data cover any of this?

 

[drankin]

A geologist (I don't remember the name) on a talk radio program suggested that volcanic activity, both underwater and above land, could significantly influence climate temperatures. This is the first time I've heard of this being a potential factor. Anyone heard of this?

 

[Borek]

Volcanic activity, or volcanic gases?

 

[LowlyPion]

Volcanic gases and particulate have apparently been modeled with the natural forcings and would seemingly have been accounted for in the models.

The natural external factors that affect climate include volcanic activity and variations in solar output. Explosive volcanic eruptions occasionally eject large amounts of dust and sulphate aerosol high into the atmosphere, temporarily shielding the Earth and reflecting sunlight back to space.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-9.2.html

 

[vanesch]

Current CO2 levels absorb what percent of the black body radiation of the Earth being reflected back into space in the 2, 3 and 15angstrom range? If the answer is 100% then there is no way CO2, no matter the concentration, can contribute to any increase in warming? Simple end of debate. Does the Hadley, MSU, NOAA or other data cover any of this?

This is not true. While it is correct that certain lines in the spectrum are entirely absorbed by CO2 (and hence doubling its concentration doesn't make any difference), the "tails" of these resonance peaks do not absorb as much. It is the widening of the "significant width" of the resonance curves with increasing concentration that makes for the increased absorption with increasing concentration.

Look at a program like MODTRAN (do a google search) to see these effects.
It is true that the effect is small, but then the power fluxes are very large, so small variations on a large flux can make a significant effect.

 

[Skyhunter]

Current CO2 levels absorb what percent of the black body radiation of the Earth being reflected back into space in the 2, 3 and 15angstrom range? If the answer is 100% then there is no way CO2, no matter the concentration, can contribute to any increase in warming? Simple end of debate. Does the Hadley, MSU, NOAA or other data cover any of this?

First mistake. Black body radiation is not reflected it is emitted.
Second mistake. Infrared lies in the 7500 - 10,000 angstrom range.
Third mistake. The atmosphere itself is radiating. The saturation of the CO2 absorption bands takes place in the first 10 meters from the surface. However that 10 meters of air is also emitting IR that is once again being absorbed by GHGs in the atmosphere. And each successive layer does the same until a height is reached where the atmosphere is no longer opaque to IR.

As for your question...Your "argument" is about theory not data. Your question makes no sense.

 

[Skyhunter]

A geologist (I don't remember the name) on a talk radio program suggested that volcanic activity, both underwater and above land, could significantly influence climate temperatures. This is the first time I've heard of this being a potential factor. Anyone heard of this?

Total geothermal, including all volcanic activity is responsible for about 0.002% of the energy in the Earths climate system. Volcanic CO2 emissions are < 1% of human emissions. However the aerosols from large plumes do have a rapid and dramatic cooling effect.

 

[wolram]

Is AGW taking a Holiday? being up to ones knees in snow and having icicles fall on ones head suggests so.

 

[Noo]

Volcanic CO2 emissions are < 1% of human emissions. However the aerosols from large plumes do have a rapid and dramatic cooling effect.

Source? I had been in the belief that the total CO2 emissions directly from human activity amounted to less than that of Volcanic activity; where do you get your <1% figure?

 

[NeoDevin]

Is AGW taking a Holiday? being up to ones knees in snow and having icicles fall on ones head suggests so.

It's +2C here in Edmonton, Alberta! Global warming is confirmed!

 

[wolram]

This page gives a balanced view

http://climatedebatedaily.com/

I am sure, if the debate started with this much conflicting evidence no one could come with
a case where a consensus AGW could be reached.

 

[Skyhunter]

Source? I had been in the belief that the total CO2 emissions directly from human activity amounted to less than that of Volcanic activity; where do you get your <1% figure?

You have been misinformed by denialist propaganda.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html"

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

 

[wolram]

Yet another fact of AGW ripped apart.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

Surely the band wagon has run out of road.

 

[Skyhunter]

Yet another fact of AGW ripped apart.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3332616/that-famous-consensus.thtml

Surely the band wagon has run out of road.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I was told that only scientific sources and opinions were considered valid. I know this is the P&WA forum but I would expect that there would at least be a minimum standard of objectivity.

 

[Evo]

Discussing the politics of AGW follows P&WA guidelines which allows for current media coverage.

 

[Skyhunter]

Discussing the politics of AGW follows P&WA guidelines which allows for current media coverage.

Even biased non objective media coverage?

What about these rules?

2) Statements of a purely inflammatory nature, regardless of whether it is a personal insult or not.
3) Assigning truth values to opinions.