Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...

Don't get your hopes up.

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 30, 2007, 01:48:02 PM

Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...

Don't get your hopes up.

Maybe he can single handedly disprove all of physics, thus making a flat earth possible. 

*yawn*

*yawn*

Yeah I got tired of waiting for that to happen too. 

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

That doesn't make sense.

Of course it doesn't. But Beast, we are talking to a GW 'skeptic' here. So them making no sense should surprise exactly no one. It's what they do best, after all.

Quote from: The Communist on June 28, 2007, 12:12:06 PM

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

That doesn't make sense.

Hes saying icebergs don't have salt in them. 

Quote from: beast on July 01, 2007, 02:42:24 AM

Quote from: The Communist on June 28, 2007, 12:12:06 PM

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

That doesn't make sense.

Hes saying icebergs don't have salt in them. 

They don't.  Why do you think global warming quacks believe that the impending disaster in the Global Ocean Conveyor is due to the inclusion of freshwater via melting ice caps?

Come on, Communist. Where's that evidence I asked for? You can't barge around calling other people quacks when you can't find any evidence to back yourself up with.

I did an experiment, though not really valid, but it seems to point to falling sea levels.

Well come on then, let's have it. If your experiment was somehow better than the ones performed by climate scientists it's something I want to see, I think.

Excuse me, you didn't have to be rude.  There were many external factors I didn't take into account.  I even said it wasn't very valid.

I'm not being rude. You've piqued my curiosity.

I take back my previous findings anyway.  I recently did another more valid experiment.  I had 400mL of ice water.  I then allowed the ice to melt.  The water level rose and then dropped.  It got as high as ≈425mL.  As it rose to room temperature, however, the water level dropped.  However, it did not go past ≈410 mL.  Therefore, I conclude that global warming will cause the water level to rise.

Maybe there is hope for the forum after all...

The forum was dull, especially the FE diatribe, until Tom joined.  Then it got interesting...

Quote from: The Communist on June 28, 2007, 12:12:06 PM

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

That doesn't make sense.

Sea water: more denser than fresh water (what ice melts into) = makes sense
100mL of ice melts into 92mL = makes sense
Oceanic thermal expansion is insignificant because global temperatures only affects the surface of oceans
= makes sense

Come on, Communist. Where's that evidence I asked for? You can't barge around calling other people quacks when you can't find any evidence to back yourself up with.

My experiment from above is proof for the ice cap situation, which is one claim from Golbal Warming quacks.  The other point (thermal expansion of sea water) shows no bearing of evidence supporting sea level rise is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature.  Also, like I explained before, the Global Conveyor maintains the stability of oceanic temperature.

I am now commencing Part II of my experiment, with 400mL of salty ice water.  The ice is melting as we speak.  Though still too early to say anything definitely, it seems that the changes in height are not as radical as fresh water.  I will post my results when done.

Quote from: beast on July 01, 2007, 02:42:24 AM

Quote from: The Communist on June 28, 2007, 12:12:06 PM

Yes, 100ml of ice would melt into 92ml, but sea water is denser than pure water, which renders oceanic thermal expansion insignificant.

That doesn't make sense.

Sea water: more denser than fresh water (what ice melts into) = makes sense
100mL of ice melts into 92mL = makes sense
Oceanic thermal expansion is insignificant because global temperatures only affects the surface of oceans
= makes sense

Source?

New Scientist reported recently that the ocean temperatures over 1000m underwater appeared to be warming.


Anyway the bit that doesn't make sense is how you state that ice melting into a lower volume of water has some relation to sea water being denser than pure water.  The important point I made in the post you were responding to was that ice makes up less than 2% of all water, so having that water melt and be less dense (or more dense) than the sea water is fairly insignificant; the change in density is so small in context that it wouldn't have a very big effect; while the thermal expansion certainly would.

I could not find this article, but the article below shows proof of falling sea levels, an obvious result from increased temperatures (which we know is true):

http://www.iceagenow.com/Falling_Sea_Levels.htm

Sorry to burst your bubble, mid.

Not to mention the ocean IS rising. Oh wait.

New Scientist reported recently that the ocean temperatures over 1000m underwater appeared to be warming.

90% of the oceans' waters exist within this thermocline (<1000m).  Any warming to this section would cause increased wave activity (you can also look up this fact).  Such increase in wave activity stimulates an increase in evaporation (thus falling sea levels) as well as filter out more CO2 within the atmosphere (that 'lil culprit causing Global Warming).

My experiment from above is proof for the ice cap situation, which is one claim from Golbal Warming quacks.  The other point (thermal expansion of sea water) shows no bearing of evidence supporting sea level rise is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature.  Also, like I explained before, the Global Conveyor maintains the stability of oceanic temperature.

Global warming theory doesn't live or die based on rising or falling sea levels. What I want you to give me is some evidence that shows that global warming is either not happening (which you implied was your belief earlier), or that it is not anthropogenic in nature. That's the sort of information I want to discuss here. I think we've pretty much settled that global warming is going to cause a rise is sea levels now.

Quote from: The Communist on July 03, 2007, 05:56:46 PM

My experiment from above is proof for the ice cap situation, which is one claim from Golbal Warming quacks.  The other point (thermal expansion of sea water) shows no bearing of evidence supporting sea level rise is due to an increase in atmospheric temperature.  Also, like I explained before, the Global Conveyor maintains the stability of oceanic temperature.

Global warming theory doesn't live or die based on rising or falling sea levels. What I want you to give me is some evidence that shows that global warming is either not happening (which you implied was your belief earlier), or that it is not anthropogenic in nature. That's the sort of information I want to discuss here. I think we've pretty much settled that global warming is going to cause a rise is sea levels now.

Nice job going off subject from my OP.

As regard to global warming,  I refer to the astronomical projections based on gross extrapolation of measurements.  I do believe in temperature rise but not in the predictions and hype asssociated with GW quacks.  If you ever read the news, you will find that GW is still under debate within the scientific community.

It was rather nice, wasn't it?

As to your response, I would find no such thing. If I were to look (and I have. Very carefully) I would find that nearly every single major scientific institution in the world, as well and virtually every single individual climate scientist, fully endorses the consensus position on climate change. in fact, save for a small but very vocal minority of contrarians, political pundits, and other equally uninformed people, I would find near total unanimity on the issue in the scientific community. Like evolutionary theory, some of the details may still be under question, but the bulk of the theory is pretty much established fact.

But all that aside, I want to see your evidence supporting the position that climate predictions are inaccurate. Because they've seemed pretty damned accurate thus far to me.

Overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community? Any sources for this opinion? Obviously you did not pay attention to me when I said GW is still in debate amongst the scientific community.  Short-term climate change supports GW but not long-term change.  GW is only able to predict short term increases in temperature.  However, these predictions were still not able to predict the effects of El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena.  Current GW predicts exorbitant increases by short-term data extrapolation using short-term data.

I have one or two. Let's see, here is a list (taken from Coby Beck's Blog Illconsidered.blogspot.com) of scientific institutions which have directly stated their agreement with the consensus:

Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academié des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
Australian Academy of Sciences
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Royal Irish Academy
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

And a study of over 900 abstracts of scientific papers published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes showed that of the articles that dealt with the issue at all, 100% of them agreed with the IPCC's cosnensus on the issue. There are almost certainly some articles that have been published that disagree with the consensus and that Oreskes's survey missed, but the fact that her sample didn't find them suggests that the number of them is quite small.

And again, I want to see some evidence that long range predictions of GW are faulty. Because I think you're just making stuff up.

I jsut provided you two examples of faulty predictions: El Nino and La Nina.  Also, the downward trend of temperature increases from the 1940s to 1970s that spurred the 'global cooling' scare were not predicted either.  Also GW is not uniform since their are patterns of solar activity every 200 years where temperatures decrease. GW extrapolation has a high margin of tolerance: 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (not a godd prediction at all).

With regards to the IPCC, even they are under much scrutiny (see wikipedia for more info).  Any sceptics on the GW matter face ad hominem attacks (also wiki).

Overwhelming acceptance in the scientific community? Any sources for this opinion? Obviously you did not pay attention to me when I said GW is still in debate amongst the scientific community.  Short-term climate change supports GW but not long-term change.  GW is only able to predict short term increases in temperature.  However, these predictions were still not able to predict the effects of El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena.  Current GW predicts exorbitant increases by short-term data extrapolation using short-term data.

Short-term data? Is this excluding the ice core samples?

Also, I think the downward trend of temperature was caused by aerosols which reflect sunlight and have a direct cooling effect.¹

---

Along with the list provided by GeoGuy you can add the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (Australia). Here's a brief fact sheet but a more interesting read is Climate change impacts, risk and the benefits of mitigation.

---

I don't really care about GW skeptics - I personally don't even care about GW (even if it doesn't exist I'm still in favour of cutting down on pollution). I do think that people that get angry over skeptics and argue agressively need to cool down - acting out won't help your side of the argument.

All in all the thing I hate is that most people can't explain GW that well to me. It seems the "facts" that always get thrown around are:

• Consensus in the scientific community (not disputing this but it doesn't actually explain or prove global warming).
• Lots of postdictions (e.g. attributing things that are currently happening to global warming without actually explaining the link - which I'm again not disputing but sometimes it feels a bit like, "chickens are laying less eggs and this is a direct result of poultry warming. if we don't act now and stop poultry warming there'll be no chickens").
• My favourite: I can't believe you don't believe in GW!!! You are murdering the planet with your disbelief!!!

So far the best evidence I've seen is the correlation between carbon levels and temperatures.

---

So how about we cool it down and debate this properly without the pompous bullshit and "I'm right, you're an idiot" attitude.

---

NOTES:

1. Aerosols and the climate

1. You are all forgetting the fact that there is much less continental ice and glaciers existing over terrain than there are over water.

2. Glaciers are continuously replenished due to precipitation.  A large source of this percipitation comes from oceans.

3. Compact ice is still less dense then arctic and antarctic temperatures then sea water at those temperatures.

1. You forgot Antarctica.

2. Completely irrelevant. There's plenty already there, and global warming will increase rainfall due to increased evaporation rates.

3. What they meant is that the seawater is also more compact, so that will become less dense as temperatures increase.

The purported reality "Humans cause Global Warming" is just a device to give people something to fret about without having to stand up to the government. In other words, people worried about the wars but too afraid to defy the government gratefully accept Global Warming as their cause because it gives them something to take action against while staying safe.

..And it is utterly pathetic.