Global Warning Causes Falling Sea Levels

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.

That's interesting... but what about the people that are in countries that aren't involved in a war and are concerned about global warming? Also, what about the people that are outspoken about both issues (which I see quite a bit - it may be a bit different than in the USA)?

My salt ice water experiment was intriguing.  The water level hardly rose or fell.  It stayed the same at 400mL.  I will do a larger scale experiment.

Disregarding frequent contamination from drilling, ice core samples are contaminated by localized events (nearby volcanic activity).  Besides these discrepancies, ice core samples make adequate indicators for only long-term data.  This long term data shows the varying cycles of climate change including our current temperature rise (and not the astronomical rate predicted by GW).

It is true that GW cannot seem to link human emissions with temperature accurately.  Afterall, correlation does not equate to causality.  A myriad of factors contribute to global change (e.g. global conveyor disturbances, volcanic activity, solar activity, etc.). Aerosols are a small factor to temperature increases but no where close to the affect of other variables.

Quote from: The Communist on June 23, 2007, 07:53:48 AM

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.

1. Though I hardly doubt the Ice Wall can contain land, the RE Antarctica shows no increases in temperature, like in other parts in the world, but has in fact cooled in the past 30 years.

2. More evaporation will result in more rainfall over terrain, resulting in the Earth absorbing more of this water source.  Another portion of this evaporated water will condense upon reaching the icewall (attracted to Earth's edge to achieve thermal equilibrium).  Though a good portion of water evaporated from the seas eventually return to the sea (overall no effect on sea level), some portions condense in other areas thus reducing sea level.

3. This is quite dense compared to fresh water, but evaporation (via temperature increase) would increase the salinity in the water (being less water and the same amount of salt).  Water with higher salinity is more dense than water of less salinity.

Disregarding frequent contamination from drilling, ice core samples are contaminated by localized events (nearby volcanic activity).  Besides these discrepancies, ice core samples make adequate indicators for only long-term data.  This long term data shows the varying cycles of climate change including our current temperature rise (and not the astronomical rate predicted by GW).

Is this something you've read or are you just making stuff up? Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers. They don't contaminate anything. In fact, ice core data helps scientists reconstruct the volcanic history of the region where the core was taken.
Anyway, why would it matter? Even if we assume that all ice core data in contaminated beyond usability, we are still left with a number of different and independent analyses all showing a definite and rapid warming trend. Satellite and radiosondes, direct surface temperature analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, Proxy Reconstructions, and a rising ocean temperature all unanimously agree that the climate is warming. Scientists don't just rely on one line of evidence to form a theory.

It is true that GW cannot seem to link human emissions with temperature accurately.  Afterall, correlation does not equate to causality.  A myriad of factors contribute to global change (e.g. global conveyor disturbances, volcanic activity, solar activity, etc.). Aerosols are a small factor to temperature increases but no where close to the affect of other variables.

Sure correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sure gives us a bloody good hint! And so far GW theory has done a marvelously good job of linking temperatures to human emissions of GHG's.
And of course human activities are not the only drivers of climate, no one ever said they were. Scientists are well aware of the many different variables that affect climate and always account for them in climate models.

My salt ice water experiment was intriguing.  The water level hardly rose or fell.  It stayed the same at 400mL.  I will do a larger scale experiment.

That's what I expected. As noted earlier in the thread it'd be kind of difficult to control the experiment since there are so many factor to take into account. But as a general rule you should expect the water level to remain constant.

1. Though I hardly doubt the Ice Wall can contain land, the RE Antarctica shows no increases in temperature, like in other parts in the world, but has in fact cooled in the past 30 years.

2. More evaporation will result in more rainfall over terrain, resulting in the Earth absorbing more of this water source.  Another portion of this evaporated water will condense upon reaching the icewall (attracted to Earth's edge to achieve thermal equilibrium).  Though a good portion of water evaporated from the seas eventually return to the sea (overall no effect on sea level), some portions condense in other areas thus reducing sea level.

3. This is quite dense compared to fresh water, but evaporation (via temperature increase) would increase the salinity in the water (being less water and the same amount of salt).  Water with higher salinity is more dense than water of less salinity.

1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?

Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.

There are several reasons why the sea level will fall rather than rise when the polar ice caps melt:

1. Ice is less dense than water, especially sea water, thus the ice displaces more space than the sea water.
2. 90% of ice is located below the sea level line, which supports point 1

When you pull out something from the water, the water level drops.

Is this something you've read or are you just making stuff up? Volcanic eruptions leave identifiable ash layers. They don't contaminate anything. In fact, ice core data helps scientists reconstruct the volcanic history of the region where the core was taken.

No, I do not make this stuff up.  You can search the details yourself.  Not all volcanic eruptions are strong enough to deposite ash throughout the globe yet still contribute to temperature change.  It can also deposit other chemicals such as sulfuric acid.

Anyway, why would it matter? Even if we assume that all ice core data in contaminated beyond usability, we are still left with a number of different and independent analyses all showing a definite and rapid warming trend. Satellite and radiosondes, direct surface temperature analysis, glacial melt observations, sea ice melt, sea level rise, Proxy Reconstructions, and a rising ocean temperature all unanimously agree that the climate is warming. Scientists don't just rely on one line of evidence to form a theory.

Yes, there are various sources but none are conclusive in giving an accurate prediction.  We are experiencing a slight global temperature increase but not as astronomical as GW quacks believe.

Sure correlation doesn't prove causation, but it sure gives us a bloody good hint!

Hints do not equal causation, sorry.

And so far GW theory has done a marvelously good job of linking temperatures to human emissions of GHG's.  And of course human activities are not the only drivers of climate, no one ever said they were. Scientists are well aware of the many different variables that affect climate and always account for them in climate models.

Obviously these scientists do not know by how much human activities/emissions contribute to GW compared with other sources.  Otherwise their 1 to 6 degree Celsius prediction would not be such a large figure.

1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?

Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.

1. Yes, I am serious.  You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity.  There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.

Yes, I am serious. 

Sure you are, Tom. 

No, I do not make this stuff up.  You can search the details yourself.  Not all volcanic eruptions are strong enough to deposite ash throughout the globe yet still contribute to temperature change.  It can also deposit other chemicals such as sulfuric acid.

I know that. Climate change brought about by volcanic activity isn't a contamination though. It's exactly the sort of thing scientists are looking for. It tells us what sorts of effects volcanic activity has on climate (generally a cooling one), and gives us a better record of the planet's Geologic history.

Yes, there are various sources but none are conclusive in giving an accurate prediction.  We are experiencing a slight global temperature increase but not as astronomical as GW quacks believe.

I think we're experiencing exactly what the models predicted. They predicted an average increase of approximately 1.5 degrees warming and that's exactly what we got. And yes, all the sources are virtually in accord on what the temperature record shows. (notice again that I'm following your lead and not bothering with any sources or other such nonsense. But I can provide them if need be).

Hints do not equal causation, sorry.

I didn't say it did, I don't think. I said it gives us a damned good place to start our investigation. The fact that CO2 levels correspond so beautifully with temperatures isn't proof positive that they are connected, but you must admit it's a compelling reason to check and see if they are.

And it doesn't matter anyway. Global warming is a physics based theory, not a best fit to the data theory.

Obviously these scientists do not know by how much human activities/emissions contribute to GW compared with other sources.  Otherwise their 1 to 6 degree Celsius prediction would not be such a large figure.

The figure has nothing to do with uncertainty in the physics of climate change. And they aren't predictions, they're projections based on a range of outcomes based on a variety of emissions scenarios. The only unknowns in these scenarios are what future anthropogenic emissions might be, as well as other semi-random factors like degree of volcanic activity and so forth. The higher end projections are based on higher emissions scenarios, and the lower are based on the lowest possible emissions scenario, with the middle range being the most likely.

Oh and by the way, let's stop chopping each other's paragraphs into tiny little bite sized pieces before we get too carried away OK? It's all fun and games at first but soon becomes annoyingly tedious to wade through.

And yet, during this roving chorus of yes/no, the water keeps arising. Irony wins again.

Quote

1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?

Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.

1. Yes, I am serious.  You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity.  There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.

If the ocean ever reaches it's limit for salinity saturation we have bigger problems than higher tides, such as all ocean life dying.

Quote from: The Communist on June 22, 2007, 12:17:15 PM

There are several reasons why the sea level will fall rather than rise when the polar ice caps melt:

1. Ice is less dense than water, especially sea water, thus the ice displaces more space than the sea water.
2. 90% of ice is located below the sea level line, which supports point 1

When you pull out something from the water, the water level drops.

Exactly.

Quote from: The Communist on July 11, 2007, 12:22:13 PM

Yes, I am serious. 

Sure you are, Tom. 

I actually take that as a compliment. 

I think we're experiencing exactly what the models predicted. They predicted an average increase of approximately 1.5 degrees warming and that's exactly what we got. And yes, all the sources are virtually in accord on what the temperature record shows. (notice again that I'm following your lead and not bothering with any sources or other such nonsense. But I can provide them if need be).

1.5 degrees of warming? When did we get that? GW predicts 1.1 to 6.4 °C from 1990 to 2100*
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Sorry, but we haven't reached 2100 yet.
Also, temperature records show current and past data but not temperatures for the future without margins for error.

The figure has nothing to do with uncertainty in the physics of climate change. And they aren't predictions, they're projections based on a range of outcomes based on a variety of emissions scenarios. The only unknowns in these scenarios are what future anthropogenic emissions might be, as well as other semi-random factors like degree of volcanic activity and so forth. The higher end projections are based on higher emissions scenarios, and the lower are based on the lowest possible emissions scenario, with the middle range being the most likely.

Our knowledge on the degree to emissions effect the climate is still too early to make adequate projections of the future.  That's why it is necessary to further examine each chemical emission within an isolated system (e.g. small geographical area, biosphere, etc.) before jumping to outrageous conclusions.

Oh and by the way, let's stop chopping each other's paragraphs into tiny little bite sized pieces before we get too carried away OK? It's all fun and games at first but soon becomes annoyingly tedious to wade through.

Whoops, didn't read this part until it was too late.  However, I seperate the prargraphs to make certain points easier to read... at least for me.

Quote from: The Communist on July 11, 2007, 12:22:13 PM

Quote

1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?

Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.

1. Yes, I am serious.  You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity.  There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.

If the ocean ever reaches it's limit for salinity saturation we have bigger problems than higher tides, such as all ocean life dying.

Possibly.  Or perhaps a greater variety of life that thrive in the new high-saline ecosystem.  Of course the ecosystem will be pretty much destroyed by the toxic emissions released by red tide (which curiously thrive from the human waste emissions).

Quote from: Roundy the Liar on July 11, 2007, 12:25:53 PM

Quote from: The Communist on July 11, 2007, 12:22:13 PM

Yes, I am serious. 

Sure you are, Tom. 

I actually take that as a compliment. 

I bet you do, Tom.   

1.5 degrees of warming? When did we get that? GW predicts 1.1 to 6.4 °C from 1990 to 2100*
*Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Sorry, but we haven't reached 2100 yet.
Also, temperature records show current and past data but not temperatures for the future without margins for error.


Our knowledge on the degree to emissions effect the climate is still too early to make adequate projections of the future.  That's why it is necessary to further examine each chemical emission within an isolated system (e.g. small geographical area, biosphere, etc.) before jumping to outrageous conclusions.

I wasn't talking about expected future warming. The 1.5 ºF (.6 ºC) figure was the warming we've already experienced. And it was exactly what the models predicted. Models don't have to be run to just show future climate you know. Scientists can test their accuracy by hind-casting with them and see how they compare to the actual temperature record. They're spot on. Which means that models are, in fact, accurate enough to predict the future.

Whoops, didn't read this part until it was too late.  However, I seperate the prargraphs to make certain points easier to read... at least for me.

Don't worry about it. So long as we're careful to not take it too far it'll be fine. I just don't like discussions like degenerating into short one sentence replies, which often happens when people start making mince meat of others' posts.

Quote from: Raist on July 11, 2007, 08:21:54 PM

Quote from: The Communist on July 11, 2007, 12:22:13 PM

Quote

1. Seriously?
2.The greatest contributor to river water is groundwater.
Would it not do anything else? I don't think it'll just sit there.
3.How would there be less water if heat makes it less dense? Is there no saturation limit in FET?

Has anyone noticed the Ice Wall should be melting? Since it's 150m/50,000 feet tall, that could drown the world, then drain away completely, taking all life with it.

1. Yes, I am serious.  You can search for sources yourself.
2. River water can also evaporate and seep into the land and even underneath bedrock, which contributes to underground reservoirs.
3. Heat does make it less dense but the seawater becomes more dense due to evaporation causing greater salinity.  There is a limit to salinity but the ocean water has not reached it and will not reach it for a long while.

If the ocean ever reaches it's limit for salinity saturation we have bigger problems than higher tides, such as all ocean life dying.

Possibly.  Or perhaps a greater variety of life that thrive in the new high-saline ecosystem.  Of course the ecosystem will be pretty much destroyed by the toxic emissions released by red tide (which curiously thrive from the human waste emissions).

Just like life thrives in the dead sea?

You will be surprised what adaptation can do.

Wlaruspineapples love high-saline waters too.

I wasn't talking about expected future warming. The 1.5 ºF (.6 ºC) figure was the warming we've already experienced. And it was exactly what the models predicted. Models don't have to be run to just show future climate you know. Scientists can test their accuracy by hind-casting with them and see how they compare to the actual temperature record. They're spot on. Which means that models are, in fact, accurate enough to predict the future.

Oh, you mean 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit. We experienced that (0.6 degree Celsius) temperature increase from 1600 to about 1900.  And, as far as I am concerned was off because they did not foresee the Industrial Revolution's impact on climate. That must have been a huge error of prediction.  I guess models are not as reliable as they seem.

As you can see from the above graph, the bulk of the temperature increase occured between about 1850 and the present, which is approximately the time when the CO2 signal overhwelmed any natural forcings (although up until about 1940 the temperature may have been partly driven by an increase in solar activity).

You will be surprised what adaptation can do.

Wlaruspineapples love high-saline waters too.

Salt flats. Moot.

lol, wut?

Indeed its a warning from the conspiracy which is secretly making the water level fall by melting the polar and linear ice caps

I'm sure that running around saying "TEH ISE IZ MELTIN" is really causing us problems.

TEH ISZ IZ MELTIN'!!!!11

TEH EATHZ IZ FLATTNING!!!!!!111 W00T1!!!!!!!!!!!11111