. . . so is the entire actual Jersey shore. A Princeton study has found that global warming is causing a rise in sea levels that is far greater and more accelerated than previously thought. The report predicts that the Jersey shore could be underwater in a matter of decades and low-lying areas thrashed by increasing storm surges.
The study of Princeton-based research group Climate Central forecasts an increase of three to four feet in water levels and that the danger of massive killer storms will double by 2030. On their site, you can pick an area to look at the potential damage.
Even if half of this rise in sea levels is realized, it would produce widespread damage within our lifetime. It will be interesting to watch those people denying this environmental trend swim out of that problem.
As for that more painful reality, my greatest concern is that Jersey Shore will then combine with Waterworld in a terrifying mutation that will lead millions to throw themselves into the sea to make it stop.
Source: CBS
No, I refuse to believe that global warming is possible therefore this cannot happen ever! Please do not try to provide me with any facts vetted by actual climate scientists or actual historical observations as I have the real facts bought and paid for by the people who produce carbon fuels and trumpeted by their paid lackeys in the wingnut press.
I can hardly wait until he gets here to comment
I’m here Frankly. Have you gone to their site and read the info or do you just accept the headline and what the story says ?
Bdaman has a Site just for him….
AY, Do you think it is a plan to keep me focused on one thread
One can hope sir….
AY the only way you can remain that assured in your ignorance is if you shut yourself off from the real world of competing ideas. I’m sure in some ways it is very comforting to never have your preconceived notions challenged, to never have to entertain the thought that you might be wrong (or any thought really). But I would think it would lead to a lot of frustration and anger when real life refuses to comply with your beliefs
“…the real world of competing ideas…”
This word “real” you use – I don’t think it means what you think it means.
On one hand is the consensus of virtually every scientist and scientific organization in the world. On the other hand are some unqualified, deluded, or dishonest people with “competing ideas”.
That is not a “real” competition of ideas.
The total rise in sea level, upon a complete melt of overland-ice, at both poles is about 210 feet.
The current civilization would cease to function at the early stages, because the ports of the world, upon which the commerce that defines civilization would be upended.
That cessation might prevent a complete melt, because it would slow or stop most international commerce, not to mention green house gas emission.
Ports are the most vulnerable locations, and the first targets.
Roger – I see your point but you are putting real in the wrong place there. It is the world the is real and the ideas just compete. That there are faeries that live in my garden is an idea. In the real world this idea would have to compete with scientific evidence that faeries do not exist and examination of my evidence that they do. But in my world I can get some trade organization that stands to gain as long as the belief in faeries continues to fund unvetted and non-peer reviewed ‘studies’ of make believe. Places like the DC post, CNN, NYTimes etc will report those findings without mentioning they are garbage. I can get people like Rush to ejaculate about it on radio for 3 hours a day, I can get Charles Krapphammer to write editorials praising it in ten Post and Brian Williams to nod knowingly after the piece covering it on the (be)nightly news.
This creates myworld & I can stop by a blog like this one & excrete several links to myworld ideas. Its and idea just not from the real world
As seas rise, researchers say devastating floods could soon wreak havoc on Shore towns
Published: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 7:00 AM Updated: Thursday, March 15, 2012, 12:49 PM
“Living along New Jersey’s 127 miles of coastline has always posed something of a risk.
Terms like coastal flooding, erosion and nor’easter have long been a part of the vocabulary of residents on the Shore.
But new research predicts rising sea levels due to global warming will more than triple the likelihood of devastating coastal flooding by the year 2030, putting more than 230,000 beach and bay-side residents in the flood zone.”
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/03/as_seas_rise_researchers_say_d.html
Dredd – The earth has a fabulous mechanism for self correction. Too much or too little of something it needs and the earth will correct. By its timeline 100 years is nothing so we may not notice it right away but it will self correct. This is not about saving the planet its about saving the human population of the planet. Earth would do quite nicely without us.
Frankly 1, March 16, 2012 at 10:07 am
Dredd – The earth has a fabulous mechanism for self correction. Too much or too little of something it needs and the earth will correct. By its timeline 100 years is nothing so we may not notice it right away but it will self correct. This is not about saving the planet its about saving the human population of the planet. Earth would do quite nicely without us.
====================================================
True dat.
Guess I won’t be buying one of those lovely old homes on Cape May.
As the waters rise, imagine this slamming into Jersey:
Dredd,
Frankly and Bdaman have something in common….as far as Frankly goes…I do speed read some of his stuff…..as far as Bdaman….right click delete….thats just the way it goes….as been suggested….so long as he stays on script…you don’t miss much…
On the plus side . . . “The Jersey Shore” team is working on a spin off so the decline of Western civilization can continue unimpeded.
test
Went to the shore near Ft. Monmouth in 1960 to see the hurricane. The surge was there raising the constant water level to one foot below the top of the sea was. Normally at high tide about at the bottom of the 10 foot wall.
For those who believe in homeostasis of conditions, examine the data recovered from frozen Hairy Mammoth carcasses in Siberia, which show that the sudden drop in temp at the start of the ice age was with a few days.
Otherwise there would be no mammoth steaks after 400,000 (?) years (ie now)
I am inclined to assert the virtue of caution
.
BTW, the neanderthal was here for over 200,000 years, far longer than Homo sapiens (so far). One alternative answer to their demise than our competion, is that they could not adapt more to the diminishing game and the rise of vegetative food..
I hope this tale of the need for adaptation to changes is accepted and used.
Frankly.
Just love this:
“It is the world the is real and the ideas just compete. ”
We create models we use since birth, refine them, replace them, etc.
But you were not specific enough about your choice of models.
My post above endorse the need for assuming the climate is warming.
Unless there is data showing that we need climate warming to avert a new ice age, then will go for that.
For additional reasons, both political and our survival in the face on man introduced toxins, etc. Let’s start getting our house in order.
Frankly at 10:04 am: “Roger – …. It is the world the is real and the ideas just compete. That there are faeries that live in my garden is an idea.”
————–
Frankly, they are real, the interwebs do not lie:
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/funny-animal-captions-animal-capshunz-i-dont-believe-you.jpg
Frankly: “Dredd – The earth has a fabulous mechanism for self correction. Too much or too little of something it needs and the earth will correct.”
***
To echo Dredd “Tru dat”. One of the methods of sequestering CO2 naturally is in the ocean and from a recent study it looks like that is what is happening with some very bad results. That may explain where the CO2 is going if not into the atmosphere. What happens when the oceans reach their CO2 saturation limit is that the oceans are dead and the CO2 starts accumulating in the atmosphere again in large quantities. (A)GW is a multi-faceted threat the implications of which are not being fully considered.
————
http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/436193/science-ocean-acidifying-so-fast-it-threatens-humanity-ability-to-feed-itself/
“Science: Ocean Acidifying So Fast It Threatens Humanity’s Ability to Feed Itself
By Joe Romm on Mar 2, 2012 at 4:13 pm
The world’s oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science.”
….
“Here’s more on the new study:
The oceans act like a sponge to draw down excess carbon dioxide from the air; the gas reacts with seawater to form carbonic acid, which over time is neutralized by fossil carbonate shells on the seafloor. But if CO2 goes into the oceans too quickly, it can deplete the carbonate ions that corals, mollusks and some plankton need for reef and shell-building.
That is what is happening now. In a review of hundreds of paleoceanographic studies, a team of researchers from five countries found evidence for only one period in the last 300 million years when the oceans changed even remotely as fast as today: the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, or PETM, some 56 million years ago. In the early 1990s, scientists extracting sediments from the seafloor off Antarctica found a layer of mud from this period wedged between thick deposits of white plankton fossils. In a span of about 5,000 years, they estimated, a mysterious surge of carbon doubled atmospheric concentrations, pushed average global temperatures up by about 6 degrees C, and dramatically changed the ecological landscape.
The result: carbonate plankton shells littering the seafloor dissolved, leaving the brown layer of mud. As many as half of all species of benthic foraminifers, a group of single-celled organisms that live at the ocean bottom, went extinct, suggesting that organisms higher in the food chain may have also disappeared, said study co-author Ellen Thomas, a paleoceanographer at Yale University who was on that pivotal Antarctic cruise. “It’s really unusual that you lose more than 5 to 10 percent of species over less than 20,000 years,” she said. “It’s usually on the order of a few percent over a million years.” During this time, scientists estimate, ocean pH—a measure of acidity–may have fallen as much as 0.45 units. (As pH falls, acidity rises.)”
****
Link to the study:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/335/6072/1058.abstract
Lotta,
you are insane, can I join you?
lLOTTA
There is another factor which can explain the temp surge.
It has been mentioned as a potential cause for runaway temp rise due to release of stored carbon compounds in the ocean bottom (name?) in the form of nodules.
When the water temp rises to a certain point, the combination of water pressure and temp will lead to releas, and the compounds turned into gas from a solid state. These gases then rise and enter the atmosphere, causing in term another water temp rise and an eventual species extinction and water evaporation and a Venusing of Earth.
Perhaps you could help me with the compounds name. Then googling would be easier……about 5 years ago it was briefly in the headlines.
It’s all a problem shared by all life forms.
Environment, energy absortion, waste disposal. And the narrow band of liveble conditions.
Don’t screw up by increasing beyond bounds, destroying your food sources, and sabotaging your environment by shitting everywhere.
Fracking your water ain’t so wise either.
‘insane’
idealist707
1, March 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
Lotta,
you are insane, can I join you?
—————
OMG! Have I come apart again?
–
I think the word you are maybe looking for is “hydrates” or “calthrates”, as in methane hydrate that exists in the deep ocean?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate
“Methane clathrate, also called methane hydrate, hydromethane, methane ice,”Fire ice natural gas hydrate or just gas hydrate, is a solid clathrate compound (more specifically, a clathrate hydrate) in which a large amount of methane is trapped within a crystal structure of water, forming a solid similar to ice.[1] Originally thought to occur only in the outer regions of the Solar System where temperatures are low and water ice is common, significant deposits of methane clathrate have been found under sediments on the ocean floors of Earth.[2] The worldwide amounts of carbon bound in gas hydrates is conservatively estimated to total twice the amount of carbon to be found in all known fossil fuels on Earth.[3]“
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 12:08 pm
lLOTTA
There is another factor which can explain the temp surge … Perhaps you could help me with the compounds name. Then googling would be easier……about 5 years ago it was briefly in the headlines.
lottakatz 1, March 16, 2012 at 2:10 pm
idealist707
1, March 16, 2012 at 11:57 am
Lotta,
…
I think the word you are maybe looking for is “hydrates” or “calthrates”, as in methane hydrate that exists in the deep ocean?
==========================================
Yep, in the deep ocean methane is stored in a crystal lattice caused by great pressures, and stores an incredible amount of energy.
That is what took out several drilling rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, for example.
In the boggy tundra areas of the far north, e.g. Alaska and Canada, it is not in the methane hydrates (crystal lattice) form, so it can release much easier.
In fact, that has disturbed some scientists who study it.
Methane, even when it is not in methane hydrates form, is 30 times more powerful of a green house gas than CO2 is.
I did a study (Danger Lurks In The Deep Water) of the research on methane hydrates in the Gulf of Mexico and the researchers indicated it is very dangerous to drilling, because it has a short fuse and amalgamates near oil and gas deposits there.
When released into the atmosphere in too much quantity it becomes dangerous in the global warming context.
Thank you both. It was methane hydrate I read about.
The ocean pressures will not lessen soon.
You gentlemen are better qualified that I to judge, at this point on the ocean temp rise diagram, when the temp at current pressure will lead to “out-gasing”.
This has to be calculated including the rise of heat retention due to atmospheric changes as to gas changes, etc. The contentious issue of the shielding effect of microparticle solids in atmoshere pollution may or may not be ignored.
Very interesting that it effects drilling in Gulf of Mexico. How about other deep water drilling worldwide?
Well, I’ve been waiting on comments on sea level rise and out of the 25 or so comments posted so far 3 are about sea level rise. And you guys bitch about me staying on topic.
Let me break it down for you seeing how you all have a problem looking at facts. According to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory the average rate of sea level rise since the early 90′s is 3.2mm per year. But in the 2010 to 2011 year sea level DROPPED 6mm.
From the JPL
Quote:
The red line in this image shows the long-term increase in global sea level since satellite altimeters began measuring it in the early 1990s. Since then, sea level has risen by a little more than an inch each decade, or about 3 millimeters per year. While most years have recorded a rise in global sea level, the recent drop of nearly a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter, is attributable to the switch from El Niño to La Niña conditions in the Pacific. The insets show sea level changes in the Pacific Ocean caused by the recent El Niño and La Niña (see http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/elninopdo for more information on these images). Image credit: S. Nerem, University of Colorado
Unquote:
When you go to the linked sea level site in the article above it makes no mention of La Nina having an effect on whether or not it has an effect on the rise but pushes the mantra that it’s worse than we thought and it’s all because of burning fossil fuels.
The Math- From the JPL quote we see that sea level has been rising at a rate of a little more than an inch per decade. This means at the current rate of acceleration, assuming that the sea level recovers and begins to rise again, in 100 years time, sea level will rise around 12 inches.
Again from the JPL
Quote
For the past 18 years, the U.S./French Jason-1, Jason-2 and Topex/Poseidon spacecraft have been monitoring the gradual rise of the world’s ocean in response to global warming.
Unquote
Notice it says GRADUAL RISE. Not to be confused with the article RISING AT ALARMING RATE.
Back to the JPL
Quote
While the rise of the global ocean has been remarkably steady for most of this time, every once in a while, sea level rise hits a speed bump. This past year, it’s been more like a pothole: between last summer and this one, global sea level actually fell by about a quarter of an inch, or half a centimeter.
Unquote
HAS BEEN REMARKABLY STEADY, again no rise at an alarming rate.
Back to JPL
Quote
Willis said that while 2010 began with a sizable El Niño, by year’s end, it was replaced by one of the strongest La Niñas in recent memory. This sudden shift in the Pacific changed rainfall patterns all across the globe, bringing massive floods to places like Australia and the Amazon basin, and drought to the southern United States.
Unquote
This means, that along with the OCEAN COOLING due to La Nina, the evaporation of water into the atmosphere from the oceans and the earth has fallen back down to earth over land. Australia suffered an extreme drought the last couple of years. So did the Amazon and the Southern U.S. mainly Texas and Arizona. MOST ALL THE CLIMATE EXPERTS said these were permanent droughts due to global warming. Guess what, THEY WERE WRONG. Australia’s drought over, Texas drought almost over, Amazon drought over. Lake Powell which was proclaimed dead by expert climate scientist Gavin Schmidt has risen 70 feet as of January 2012. The record snows Europe has received the last 3 years also factored in to the FALL OF sea level.
Back to the JPL
Quote
So where does all that extra water in Brazil and Australia come from? You guessed it–the ocean. Each year, huge amounts of water are evaporated from the ocean. While most of it falls right back into the ocean as rain, some of it falls over land. “This year, the continents got an extra dose of rain, so much so that global sea levels actually fell over most of the last year,” says Carmen Boening, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Boening and colleagues presented these results recently at the annual Grace Science Team Meeting in Austin, Texas.
Unquote
and just so you can’t say I’m cherry picking
Quote
But for those who might argue that these data show us entering a long-term period of decline in global sea level, Willis cautions that sea level drops such as this one cannot last, and over the long-run, the trend remains solidly up. Water flows downhill, and the extra rain will eventually find its way back to the sea. When it does, global sea level will rise again.
“We’re heating up the planet, and in the end that means more sea level rise,” says Willis. “But El Niño and La Niña always take us on a rainfall rollercoaster, and in years like this they give us sea-level whiplash.”
Unquote
Water does flow down hill but not all water makes it back to the ocean as evidence of Lake Powell. The ground absorbs water, trees and plants take it in. ON AN ON AND ON.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
So we know precipitation plays a role in sea level. Obviously frozen participation included. Lets take a look and an icon Mt Kilimanjaro.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming predictions
AMHERST – If there is a poster child for global warming, it may be the vanishing snows of Kilimanjaro, which were predicted to disappear as early as 2015 in a widely-publicized report a decade ago.
However, the famed snowcap is stubbornly persisting on the African peak and may not fully vanish for another 50 years, according to a University of Massachusetts scientist who had a hand in the prediction.
The 2001 forecast was indirectly part of key evidence for global warming offered during the 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth,” which warned of the threats of rising global temperatures. In it, former vice president Al Gore stated, “Within a decade, there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro” due to warming temperatures.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2011/03/snows_of_kilimanjaro_defy_global_warming_predictions.html
Here’s the kicker
QUOTE
“Unfortunately, we made the prediction. I wish we hadn’t,” says Douglas R. Hardy, a UMass geoscientist who was among 11 co-authors of the paper in the journal Science that sparked the pessimistic Kilimanjaro forecast. “None of us had much history working on that mountain, and we didn’t understand a lot of the complicated processes on the peak like we do now.”
“The glaciers are still shrinking, and in the next decades they will almost certainly disappear, but it will probably be on the order of three or four decades, maybe five,” Hardy said recently. “But we don’t know for sure. It might be in only two.”
UNQUOTE
WAIT! It gets better. Notice above that Doug Hardy wished they hadn’t made the prediction? That’s because the prediction was wrong. As a result, Hardy simply said that it would take longer; 3, 4, maybe 5 decades before the decreasing snowcap disappears. –Guess what? It’s not shrinking!
Are the snows of Kilimanjaro returning? Guide says yes
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/01/18/2595738/are-the-snows-of-kilimanjaro-returning.html#storylink=cpy
Despite what you have just read how EXPERTS can be wrong or SEA LEVEL IS NOT RISING AT AN ALARMING RATE or Kilimanjaro not shrinking you guys will still be deniers.
bda,
I don’t bitch about you staying on topic.
It is my observation that almost every poster has a favorite “topic” and segues to it every chance they get.
Thank you MS, Blouise I’m trying not to be an asshole but when you are constantly called every name in the book, it’s hard not too. I posted a comment on Raffs EPA thread from Gingerbaker and Slartibartfast. Raff thought it was pretty ruff. When you combine it with the fact that I was factually correct, it just amazes me that they still want to call me an idiot.
Bdaman is citing a Kilimanjaro guide.
According to Kaser [a leading expert on low-latitude glaciers], there’s no evidence to support [the guide]‘s observation. Such a reversal would require an increase in precipitation over the past two to three years, which didn’t occur, he said.
Blouise, You noticed.lol Some of us segue into how awful the republicans because of the war on women. Others segue into how EVIL Obama is no matter what the topic is.
bda,
Hey man, you give as good as you get.
Sometimes this place is like West Side Story except everybody belongs to both the Jets and the Sharks … all depending on the topic, sides change.
Sooner or later Officer Krupke shows up
SwM,
Testing, testing … Pelosi Rules! …
Dinner time … later
Blouise, Bda lines up with anti-Obama and anti-Pelosi group.
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Thank you both. It was methane hydrate I read about.
…
Very interesting that it effects drilling in Gulf of Mexico. How about other deep water drilling worldwide?
========================================================
We know more about Mars and Luna (the moon) than we do about the deep oceans, yet the psychopaths want to blunder into that area psychotically screaming “drill baby drill”.
That is, into an area “where angels fear to tread.”
My research of late was limited to the Gulf of Mexico primarily, because it is the area of convergence for the K-T extinction crater (Chicxulub Crater), the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe, and the psychoanalysis of 9/11 denialism.
The K-T is an imprint from the 65 million year old dinosaur mass-extinction event, which scientists on about this date two years ago, said was asteroid / meteorite induced.
Anyway, I sum it all up in one post about a subject called SCAD (State Crimes Against Democracy).
Global warming induced climate change denial propaganda is a state crime against democracy, in the sense that the House of Representatives is infested with such deniers, who want to officially label the science “the greatest hoax ever fostered on America.”
Bdaman:
Keep it simple.
you are going out on a limb talking about the hydrologic cycle.
Gene probably thinks that is when you read HWB Joseph in the bathtub.
Bdaman 1, March 16, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Well, I’ve been waiting on comments on sea level rise and out of the 25 or so comments posted so far 3 are about sea level rise. And you guys bitch about me staying on topic.
==========================================================
You seem to be “on topic challenged” because JT posted, inter alia, this:
If you don’t think that has topic linkage to “sea level rise” then I think we have isolated one of your manic problems posing as enlightenment.
Mike S,
Could you do some more pro bono work for our pal Bdaman on this on/off topic thingy?
love ya bda …
Bdaman,
Interesting, actually. the various scientists have my admiration, but who really knows. an off-topic question. when does the next ice age come?
And was the Carmen group report published after peer review in a respectable journa.?
As for satellite altimeters, doubtful, centimeters and milliimeters. don’t feel that their orbits are that constant although could be radar or laser checked. or transponder checked from 3 ground stations on a joint pass.
however how do they achieve such height resolution. not your area nor mine, so let that be an unanswered question.
I’ve always dabbled in things like that since i did a concept design of a nuclear explosion detection and magnitude deternining device in 1961.
Nal your a denier http://www.eturbonews.com/21762/snow-slowly-building-mount-kilimanjaro
Bdaman 1, March 16, 2012 at 4:29 pm
So we know precipitation plays a role in sea level. Obviously frozen participation included. Lets take a look and an icon Mt Kilimanjaro.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Snows of Kilimanjaro defy global warming predictions
===========================================
Don’t rely on newspaper headlines like “snowpocalypse” because they are ginned up by hucksters and sensationalists.
Stay away from the duhpocalypse … take some community college courses instead, then …
get deep.
Dredd
luna, of course do you think i’m a lunatic?
k-t, of course all us dinosaur lovers know that, more later on mineral layers worldwide supposedly confirming massive meteorite impact.
SCAD will read thanks.
and you see what happens when you come to the comments direct and don’t read the whole blog first.
For instance you mention JT saying:
“the sea level rise -based research group Climate Central forecasts an increase of three to four feet in water levels and that the danger of massive killer storms will double by 2030.”
Is such a rise reasonable in 18 years?
.
Bron,
I’m still waiting for Bdaman to produce evidence I ever said weather isn’t climate. As for limbs, he’s on one scientifically every time he starts his denier spiel. I’m sure his understanding of the hydrological cycle is as superficial as his understanding of chemistry and complex systems.
Bdaman and perhaps others including myself,
Buddha said. don’t get involved, otherwise reincarnation and always pain.
Koran says. don’t get intoxicated by ANYTHING. even life, riches, whatever.
Don’t get fixated and let it become too important.
What does it import? You tell me. Do you think I’m wise.?
Dredd:
that methane hydrate is interesting stuff. I used to survey in the GOMex and would see these areas around the size of half a football field that had bubbles coming to the surface in pretty good quantities. Supposedly that was what was coming to the surface, methane from the sea floor.
What with all the methane being released world wide and it changing into CO2, how do you tell how much that methane contributes to CO2 increase and how much man made sources of methane, rice paddies, cows, etc, contribute to CO2 increase along with man caused CO2 production.
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Dredd
luna, of course do you think i’m a lunatic?
k-t, of course all us dinosaur lovers know that, more later on mineral layers worldwide supposedly confirming massive meteorite impact.
SCAD will read thanks.
and you see what happens when you come to the comments direct and don’t read the whole blog first.
For instance you mention JT saying:
“the sea level rise -based research group Climate Central forecasts an increase of three to four feet in water levels and that the danger of massive killer storms will double by 2030.”
Is such a rise reasonable in 18 years?
==============================
None of this is “reasonable”, it is foreseeable based on the psychopathic behavior of a society of plutocrats that have the emotional constipation of Bdaman and his ilk.
But to get into some hermeneutics concerning JT’s post, I would say that he was in reference to massive killer storms doubling by 2030, not an increase of sea level by 3 or 4 feet by 2039.
But let me add that I do not consider either of those to be impossible or even improbable, because I have “done the google” on the phrases “greater than expected”, “more that expected”, “more than at first thought”, and similar English phrases.
In so doing I find that the entire spectrum of catastrophic incoming events have all been woefully underestimated for decades.
The reason is that people, including Bdaman, FEAR DEATH, which is fine, but it is not fine to FEAR DEATH while at the same time advocating and doing exactly those things that bring DEATH about, prematurely, or at all.
LIFE is a function of doing the things of life.
“not an increase of sea level by 3 or 4 feet by 2039″
oops … I meant to type “2030″ …
Dredd,
“LIFE is a function of doing the things of life.” My therapist said that in different words. Love it.
as to storms, probably more. at any rate with the increasing density of pop at shorelines the damage will go up.
interested to know what is included in the type of woefully underestimated catastrophes????
Bron,
Why was this not checked. Of course ocean bottom outgasing is not significant in oil prospecting, it that was what you were doing.
And does the methane convert to CO2? (not you that said it) Doubt it. But is it important, that is instead the quadruple effect re CO2 re warming.
Interesting background you two must have.
But back to the shoreline etc. Did JT pose a question of legal or social type.
Dredd,
why don’t they do as we computer people do—-put the zero before one, not after nine????
Gene:
I only have a superficial knowledge of the hydrologic cycle and I studied it in a class called hydrology.
There are so many aspects to the cycle you can understand the overall concept but not understand the whole thing. Just think about infiltration into the soil for one, how many different soils there are, grain size, chemical make up, all of those and many other properties govern infiltration of water into soil along with the surface and subsurface vegetation and its interaction with the soils. On top of that there is the underlying geology to understand so you can have an idea as to whether the soils are from sedimentary, metamorphic, igneous, etc. rocks.
Then there is the permeability of the soil which is an entire subject on its own.
So there are very few people who have a complex understanding of the hydrologic cycle. Just as there are very few people who have a complex understanding of climate change which is far more complex than the hydrologic cycle.
Bron 1, March 16, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Dredd:
that methane hydrate is interesting stuff. I used to survey in the GOMex and would see these areas around the size of half a football field that had bubbles coming to the surface in pretty good quantities. Supposedly that was what was coming to the surface, methane from the sea floor.
What with all the methane being released world wide and it changing into CO2, how do you tell how much that methane contributes to CO2 increase and how much man made sources of methane, rice paddies, cows, etc, contribute to CO2 increase along with man caused CO2 production.
======================================================
Yes, that methane hydrate expands 164 times instantly, once the crystal lattice around the methane molecule liquefies.
That phenomenon took town the technically advanced rig Deepwater Horizon quite quickly, when they hit more methane hydrate than they could handle (hence the interest as a source of energy).
I don’t think methane turns into CO2.
The first thing for you and Bdaman to grasp is incoming photons. From the Sun. Which increases the Earth’s warmth by x degrees. Then grasp radiation of heat from the Earth that, in good times, is equal to y degrees, and glory be x=y.
Warm in x, warm out y, both equal, and we have good times.
When CO2 or any other green house gases increase to the point that input x becomes greater than radiation y, heat builds up.
Heat is warm, therefore, warming.
On a flat Earth, that is flatulent warming, on a globe it is global warming.
The record shows that denier flatulence, non-denier flatulence, cow flatulence, and all bullshit have never exceeded the x=y balance UNTIL …
the industrial revolution, the Earth coup, the rise of the ignorant, yes, the anthropogenic epoch, NOW (about two centuries).
The problem is that the x can no longer be matched by the y because we have too many gases of civilization acting as a “blanket”, a barrier to the radiation of heat away from our planet.
The indictment by Agent Orange (Boehner) of the farts of cows is a false charge, but the indictment of the farts of current industrial civilization is a true bill.
Snooki of Jersey shore does not know these things.
ID:
apparently CH4 + 2O2 —-> CO2 + 2H2O
CO2 /= CH4
CO2 /= CO2 + 2H20
CO2 = CO2
Mathodrene … gotta luv it …
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Dredd,
why don’t they do as we computer people do—-put the zero before one, not after nine????
===================
Yeah, bit by bit baby!
Dredd
Admire your equations but must say it should have 3 quantities.
X= input from sun.
Y= emission from earth
Z= retention due to different factors, such as gas effects, albedo, etc.
and a resulting temp rise or fall.
and of course other factors. but feel absorption/retention should be included.
So take it away professor Dredd.
You seem to be “on topic challenged” because JT posted, inter alia, this:
Dredd unless JT posted that in the COMMENT SECTION it doesn’t count.
I said
I’ve been waiting on comments on sea level rise and out of the 25 or so comments posted so far 3 are about sea level rise.
Dredd and Bron,
if bron saw methane bubbles and the people on deep horizon were not idiots then why did the fucker deactivate the gas alarm system? And why was he and others not tried for criminal negligence if not manslaughter?
Secondly, I have a solution to energy recovery by methane hydrate capture.
It’s worth multi-billions, so give me 1 percent of the payoff per year and I’m satistied, payable after my death to a trust to my inheritors etc.
Through research develop a process for production of graphene sheets.
Develop an adhesive for making in the ocean gas tight splices between parallel sheets.
Develop a sheet laying system to be used in the gulf of mexico.
Develop a floating gas-line system for transporting the gas to landing facilities.
Develop and lay a system of collection systems, star net formed.
Declare them to be of national security status and guard them with mines to guard against naval incursion.
Develop animal intrusion, assure oxygenation needs by spacing or aeration systems, etc environmental safeguards.
etc,etc.
However, give some payoff to Obama or successor to assure your protection by the SS against “contract killers” hired by certain known opponents to this competition to oil.
Good luck. When you get it going, come back. I have several non-oceanic systems planned. Smile.
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Dredd
Admire your equations but must say it should have 3 quantities.
X= input from sun.
Y= emission from earth
Z= retention due to different factors, such as gas effects, albedo, etc.
and a resulting temp rise or fall.
and of course other factors. but feel absorption/retention should be included.
So take it away professor Dredd.
===========================
x = y – z
BDAMAN
you are boring down. hang loose instead, you’re losing your readership and your legibility.
Dredd 1, March 16, 2012 at 8:14 pm
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Dredd
…. why don’t they do as we computer people do—-put the zero before one, not after nine???? … Admire your equations
=======================================
There is no nine.
It goes bit 0 through bit 7 (a byte)
then it goes high bit low bit
which is high and which is low depends on
the company … i.e. big endian or little endian
in which case one shifts the bits x <> y
capice?
love ya idealist707
Dredd the more I read your ramblings the more whacked out you become.
Where the ^%$# do you get the ability to determine that based on comments in a comment section,
The reason is that people, including Bdaman, FEAR DEATH,
You are whacked out man.
that was wierd …
I typed “x <> y” but it put out “x y” …
computers are evolving?
look out Idealist707 …
It ignores the quotes …
I typed “x < > y” (spaces added) …
ok, in english
I typed “x less-than-sign less-than-sign y or x greater-than-sign greater-than-sign y”
In other words the c bit shifting operator (two signs shift the opposite way.
Bdaman 1, March 16, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Dredd the more I read your ramblings the more whacked out you become.
Where the ^%$# do you get the ability to determine that based on comments in a comment section,
The reason is that people, including Bdaman, FEAR DEATH,
You are whacked out man.
========================
I get it from world renowned scientists:
(Convergence – Fear of Death Syndrome). Any questions Bdaman of fear?
I mean, which of my comments pointing out your psychopathology and where you got it do you not yet understand?
Never mind, psychopaths do not reason, they fear in what they think are very cool ways.
Dredd,
Hexadecimal panel programming direct on the computer while paused,
my bit is greater than yours. I know position counts. But that’s true in decimal and other foots. and we’ve got random memory assignment, memory protection as to use, hardwired level precedence versus stack, microsecond interrupt handling.etc.
Met an indian games programmer in a vietnam restaurant at lunch.
he understood and said he had 40 microseconds to handle his routines just now.
Whaddaya say.
?????
Dredd you believe in entirely too much of what you read man.
I wish the best for you.
Dredd.
you are grim. i lost my survival cherry when the heat death of thermodynamics was explained to me at fourteen years.
and however or whoever explains it, we do have a problem for folks to handle this constant death threat.
perhaps it is the ultimate challenge carried by education and the world network, who everybody is coupled into now.
Death visits the house next to ours everyday, whether it is here or farther away. We try to shield ourselves, but media thrives and we are drawn like moths to the candle flame.
Some good shit you produce. Impressive.
capisco.
Got to sleep now. it’s soon 2am
CUL.
December 12, 2007
An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated this summer—a sign that some scientists worry could mean global warming has passed an ominous tipping point.
One scientist even speculated that summer sea ice could be gone in five years.
Just last year two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting that the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely by the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: “At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/071212-AP-arctic-melt.html
“Never mind, psychopaths do not reason, they fear in what they think are very cool ways”
tell that to blouise, she appreciates things like that.
Arctic ice extent is the highest in the DMI record for the date, and is about 10% higher than 2007. It is impossible for it to be nearly ice free by summer of 2012
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Dredd.
you are grim … Some good shit you produce. Impressive. capisco. Got to sleep now. it’s soon 2am
====================
Just wanted you to understand the bitwise c operators I was typing in … but the HTML interpreter on Turley Blog (WordPress?) was not handling properly. (“we don’t do no stinkin’ bitwise operators in this HTML interpreter baby!”
Kids.
cheers idealist707.
Dredd,
If you confuse with factual facts are you not worried that you will have contributed to the self deluded organic brain malfunction? Some don’t have far to wonder and get lost in that space….. But remember not all who wonder are lost…..they just can’t recall how they got there…..
Bdaman 1, March 16, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Arctic ice extent …
ask them first thing about order … of magnitude … like the difference between squared and cubed.
================================
When you check in to that community college thingy I mentioned earlier,
The cubic quantity of ice is an order of magnitude greater than the square footage of ice one can see in a photo, a.k.a. “extent”.
The cubic volume of ice, the gallons of water that ice would produce, are the values you would learn in that class (it is free to veterans).
The number of gallons of water the Arctic and the Antarctic would produce if melted before your bloodshot eyes is decreasing as the ice melts and becomes gallons in the sea.
Mike S … gonna do that pro bono for Bbaman? …
Anonymously Yours 1, March 16, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Dredd,
If you confuse with factual facts are you not worried that you will have contributed to the self deluded organic brain malfunction? Some don’t have far to wonder and get lost in that space….. But remember not all who wonder are lost…..they just can’t recall how they got there…..
===================================================
I knew you were an artist!
idealist707 1, March 16, 2012 at 8:52 pm
“Never mind, psychopaths do not reason, they fear in what they think are very cool ways”
tell that to blouise, she appreciates things like that.
=========================================
Yeah, I am obviously really trying hard to be appreciated here …
“… things like that …”
I am beginning to think you have had experience using satellites … anyway, you are still cool 707 …
Dredd,
I was just listening to my hero jimmy Morrisons long XXX version of Gloria…… It’s about 9 minutes…… Maybe some here have had similar experiences and just didn’t return all at once……
Public release date: 16-Mar-2012
‘Gravity is climate’ – 10 years of climate research satellites GRACE
How much ice is Greenland really losing? – Movement in the Earth’s mantle? – Enough water for all?
Quote
For the first time, the melting of glaciers in Greenland could now be measured with high accuracy from space. Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the twin satellites GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment) a sharp image has surface, which also renders the spatial distribution of the glacial melt more precisely. The Greenland ice shield had to cope with up to 240 gigatons of mass loss between 2002 and 2011. This corresponds to a sea level rise of about 0.7 mm per year.
Unquote
Dredd could you do the math for us, I fear I may die if I do it. In 9 years 240 gigatonnes of ice melted which equated to a 0.7mm rise of sea level. This is way below the average rise of 3.2mm of sea level rise sighted by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in the comment I used above. This could only mean that the claim sea level is rising at an alarming rate is false when evaluating a time span of the last twenty years, At the 0.7mm rise how many years will it take, considering the same rate of current loss of 240 gigaton for the ocean to rise 12 inches.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/haog-ic031412.php
Dredd,
Back again.
“appreciate”? would it be better if i said she “prizes” good sayings? Would you feel prized? or prefer enjoyed, snappy source..
Don’t get hung up on the eventual vacuity of what I write, there might not be anything other a long list of possible meanings hiding there, none of them right—-and all reflecting your speculation capacity, and not me at all.. Smile.
As for bitwise ops, we had a rich instruction list which extended from bits to double constants, to via other dynamic values and re-entrant relative dynamic placement values. We also had extensive field operations, such as “coi compare two fields which gave several return data., etc.
This was in1970 in assembly programming. I stopped 3 years later.
What do you mean by bitwise c ops?
And don’t mention html. No capisco.
idealist707 heres part of the answer you were looking for. Same link in my last comment.
The primary scientific goal of the GRACE satellite mission is to measure the gravitational field of the earth and its changes over time on a global scale with unprecedented accuracy. If the earth were a homogeneous sphere, the two satellites would orbit at exact elliptical orbits around the Earth. But the uneven distribution of mass causes perturbations in the trajectory. “Their analysis allows us to derive the irregular structure of the Earth’s gravity,” explains Dr. Frank Flechtner. “This, however, requires the satellites’ orbits to be measured with high precision. Each of the two GRACE satellites is therefore equipped with a GPS receiver for positioning, an accelerometer to correct for disturbing forces due to the residual atmosphere and solar radiation, and two star trackers to determine the satellites’ position in space.” But the core is the ultra-precise distance measurement system developed by NASA / JPL, which allows the separartion of the two satellites to be continuously measured with a precision of one tenth of a hair’s breadt
Dredd,
As for satellites, I did some very low level system stuff for Vandenberg AFB, JPL mars lander program, and what was called DYNASOAR, a non-orbital round the world “spacecraft”, and at certifiying/facility testing test design for LEM motor ground test. Geez, lots of “tests” there. The motor test facility was over the mountain from White Sands, NM in the direction of Las Cruces.
Very limited low level stuff, all of it.
Dredd:
you bring up an interesting point about volume and surface area. Ice is less dense than water so a cubic foot of water weighs more than a cubic foot of ice. Ice also floats in water and so displaces a weight of water equal to the displacement which is why steel ships float.
So when you fill a glass with ice cubes and then fill the glass to the rim, the water level in the glass is lower when the ice melts.
Wouldnt the same apply to the oceans if all the sea ice melted?
AY
do you have a link please?
here’s one i found when searching youtube for grace.
pieces don’t fit anymore.
bron
one thing is the object to be measured and its characteristics.
The other is the measuring systems and its referency points which are dynamic—-all of them.
Won’t go into depth, but the earth is not spherical, the orbits aren’t either, the ocean surface is subject to many influences from tidal, currents, winds, geothermic caused mass movements causing gravity changes, etc.
The measurement system is poorly described. The following is fallacious:
“two star trackers to determine the satellites’ position in space.”
These trackers can only be used for attitude orientation measurement, not positioning. The system which can measured separation between satellites must entail line of sight laser measuring. etc.
But my main objection is the conclusion that from highly instantaneous data points can be drawn the generaltiy of a ocean rise of fall over a period of time. Is it simply averaging or another algorithm?
ID:
which is why I am skeptical about the claims AGWarmers make.
Exactly, but when you sell, however factual you are, it still has to be appealing. Am sure you’ve noticed. And there many such techniques, like belittling scientists, etc. or using their white coats to sell drugs, etc.
So think how a car salesman does, and it’ll go better—–and be sure to let it go and recreate with other interests.
As my therapists says, you’re only responsible for yourself. And that’s a relief if it helps get away from the “save the world” responsibility which I carried since I was 10.
Good luck.
idealist707 I must say out of all the comments you’ve made that I have read the last two were clear and concise and I definitely enjoyed them. Thank you for those comments.
Going back to the frozen precipitation I’ll remind everyone that back in 2000 expert climate scientist Dr. David Viner said in a few short years snowfall would become a thing of the past. Children would have to go to the internet to experience a virtual snowfall in order to see what it was like.
With that said.
Alaska’s largest city eyes snow record
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — A near-record snowfall this winter has buried Anchorage neighborhoods, turning streets into snow-walled canyons and even collapsing some roofs.
But some residents are hoping for more, at least another 3.3 inches. Then they could say they made it through the winter when the nearly 60-year record of 132.6 inches was broken.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ANCHORAGE_SNOW?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-03-17-05-18-38
P.S. just not Alaska
Sunday 5 February 2012
Heaviest snowfall in decades wreaks havoc across Europe
Hundreds of people die in Arctic conditions across continent, with more than 120 reported dead in Ukraine alone
http://www.guardian.co.uk/weather/2012/feb/05/heaviest-snowfall-decades-havoc-europe
Evidence for unstable weather patterns. Who’d have thunk it? With unstable weather being a consequence of AGW and all.
hundreds if not thousands died in Europe 700-800 years ago during a particulary nasty period with no industrial CO2.
Yeah, but they made up for the lack of industrial CO2 by having lots of plague.
Argument by non-sequitur; a logical fallacy.
not a non sequitur at all. You made the statement that European weather is a result of AGW. I merely pointed out that 800 years ago there was a cold spell having nothing to do with AGW.
Showing that weather patterns were severe at different times in the past is germane to your statement about unstable weather today. If weather was unstable in the past there is a good chance it will be unstable in the future. In fact I dont think I have ever seen stable weather patterns in my entire life. Some years are colder, some years have more snow or rain, some years have more storms. Man’s frame of reference is very small because he only lives 80 years and we seem to reinvent many wheels with each generation.
I could have also pointed to more recent cold weather patterns in Europe in the last few hundred years. AGW is not the only probable cause for the European cold spell.
Weather patterns cycle over time. Looking at a snapshot in time, industrial age say 1880 to the present, a mere 130 years and being able to claim with any degree of certainty the changes are from man is the fallacy. More like a fraud.
The climate is changing, it has been changing for as long as there has been climate. It will continue to change for the rest of the life of the earth. It will cycle between cold and hot, wet and dry, a plethora of storms and a paucity of storms. And it will cycle in all latitudes and continents in different ways from now until the sun dies.
And speaking of the sun:
http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20120312_FourHorsemenPart2.pdf
“conclusion- we are going into a cooling period due to lower solar activity, CO2 heating effect is real but minuscule.”
Its the sun, its the sun. Silly AGWarmers, only you would believe it was CO2.
Do really even know what logical fallacies are? I think you need a better logic book. You might try one of the older ones. Joseph is very good and is Aristotelian in structure.
“not a non sequitur at all. You made the statement that European weather is a result of AGW. I merely pointed out that 800 years ago there was a cold spell having nothing to do with AGW.”
Actually, you made a vague general statement about European death rates. High death rates that had little to do with the weather during the time period you cited.
“hundreds if not thousands died in Europe 700-800 years ago during a particulary nasty period with no industrial CO2.”
That was a non-sequitur, i.e. an argument in which the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
I’ll consider taking lessons in logic from you when you demonstrate you can use the tool properly and at a minimal proficiency. I won’t be holding my breath.
As to the rest of your drivel, feel free to ignore chemistry all you like.
NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gases blamed
New data reveal:
(CSM, emphasis added).
Polar ice is melting 3 times faster than glaciers elsewhere
And the rate if melt is Accelerating, meaning it is non-linear, “greater next year”:
(Scientific American).
Bron 1, March 17, 2012 at 11:57 am
Dredd:
you bring up an interesting point about volume and surface area. Ice is less dense than water so a cubic foot of water weighs more than a cubic foot of ice. Ice also floats in water and so displaces a weight of water equal to the displacement which is why steel ships float.
So when you fill a glass with ice cubes and then fill the glass to the rim, the water level in the glass is lower when the ice melts.
Wouldnt the same apply to the oceans if all the sea ice melted?
=================================================
Yes, when calculating sea level rise purely as a function of “displacement”. one cannot use ice already in the ocean, because ice in the ocean, when it melts after getting there, will not increase ocean water volume or sea level, when it eventually melts into water while there.
Further, since it will likely cool the ocean some, that causes a decrease in sea level, because cooler water has less cubic volume than warmer water.
In other words, as water cools it shrinks, but as it warms it expands.
That is why I have used the term “overland-ice” in my comments up-thread in this post.
As overland-ice (e.g. Greenland, Antarctica) flows into the ocean, then melts, or melts on land into water that then flows into the sea, the cubic volume of water in the oceans increases, as does the sea level.
Further, as the oceans warm, likewise the sea level rises based on that warming alone.
The bottom line requires the calculation of the total volume increase as a function of the additional volume of water, together with the additional volume caused by the expansion due to warming of ocean waters.
idealist707 1, March 17, 2012 at 6:20 am
Dredd,
As for satellites, I did some very low level system stuff for Vandenberg AFB, JPL mars lander program, and what was called DYNASOAR, a non-orbital round the world “spacecraft”, and at certifiying/facility testing test design for LEM motor ground test. Geez, lots of “tests” there. The motor test facility was over the mountain from White Sands, NM in the direction of Las Cruces.
Very limited low level stuff, all of it.
=============================
Cool.
I did some programming for Boeing/Rocketdyne (a joint venture) on the International Space Station project. They had the contract for the Solar Panel Power System of the station.
It is a big, inhabited satellite.
idealist707 1, March 17, 2012 at 6:12 am
Dredd,
…
What do you mean by bitwise c ops?
And don’t mention html. No capisco.
===============================
In the C and C++ programming languages there are operators that operate on bits rather than bytes.
Bytes have 8 bits (0-7). When you hear “it is a 32 bit processor” that equates to 4 bytes.
The little endian, big endian issue has to do with where the “high bit” is … which end of the bit stream of 7 bits is the “most significant bit”.
For example, the value of the byte “10000000″ and the byte “00000001″ will depend on whether the processor is little endian or big endian.
In little endian processors the “1″ in the first byte (“10000000″) is at the most significant bit (MSB), i.e., the most significant bit is “set”, is on. In the second byte (“00000001″) the MSB is not “set”, is off, i.e. is “0″.
For example Motorola processors have big endian bytes, while Intel processors have little endian bytes.
Thus, low level source code bitwise operators won’t work the same on the two computers unless the code is recompiled, or other accommodations are implicit.
Shifting the bits to the left or right with one of the bitwise operators changes the value of the byte.
Since the HTML interpreter of WordPress does not properly interpret “< >”, (bitwise shift operators), properly, I put a space there (no space in real operator).
Here is an entry in Wiki that discusses bitwise shift operation.
“In other words, as water cools it shrinks, but as it warms it expands.”
————————-
Dredd, then why can I not fill my icecube trays to the rim….(they overflow when freezing…)
is a conundrum…..
Woosty,
A bad case of contracting trays…
Love the new avatar, though the data sicken me.
http://www.word-detective.com/howcome/waterexpand.html
Why does water expand when it cools?
by Kathy Wollard
Result: Put 10 cups of water in the freezer, take out nearly 11 cups of ice!
Thanks for the Sunday morning “conundrum”, Woosty.
The question above, the answer below:
“Scientists say water’s quirky behavior is caused by the shape of its molecule and by how its molecules bond to one another.
Each water molecule is two hydrogen atoms bonded to one oxygen atom (H2O). Because of how the atoms share electrons, a water molecule is slightly positively charged at the hydrogen atoms, and slightly negatively charged at the oxygen atom. The molecule’s charged ends attract the oppositely charged ends of other water molecules (“hydrogen bonding”).
In liquid water, as molecules slip-slide past each other, bonds form, break, and re-form. But by the time water has cooled to 4 C., the molecules’ energy has dropped enough that they are very near one another. So each H2O molecule forms more stable hydrogen bonds, with up to four fellow molecules.
By 0 C. (32 F.), the H2O molecules are snappily lined up in a frozen crystal lattice, an open hexagonal (six-sided) shape. Unlike in liquid water, the molecules in ice are held rigidly apart. That means more empty space between molecules, so frozen water occupies more room.
Result: Put 10 cups of water in the freezer, take out nearly 11 cups of ice! “
ahhhhhhhhhhhh….
what a lovely explanation….I will continue to let my ice cubes do thier thing…
and thanks Anon for the explanation!
anon nurse, Woosty,
There is no contradiction nor mystery. One must take the range of temperature into consideration, which will relate to the range of contraction and expansion.
In other words, one must pay attention to the context.
When water first turns into ice there can be some expansion. As the ice is made more and more cold, it expands further. That is how water pipes break when they “freeze hard enough” but don’t break when they only freeze a little bit.
As cold is added, expansion increases, in that context, until damage takes place.
If you add warm in proper amounts to those frozen pipes the ice will decrease in volume and eventually return to normal volume, but if you keep adding heat it will expand again and can bust those pipes by being too hot.
Water increases volume, or not, depending on the context.
Think of an hour-glass. It is big at the top and the bottom, but narrow in the middle. Water volume is like that. At a certain temperature it is at the thinnest, but adding either cold or heat moves it toward expansion.
H2O expands, and contracts, depending on temperature and pressure.
Normal temperature ccean water expands when warmed, i.e., there will be a rise in the ocean level.
You can’t apply what happens to water inside your kitchen or bathroom sink to global water dynamics, without proper context.
You have to consider not only where it is happening, but you have to consider that together with the beginning status compared to the ending status (e.g. ice beginning, water beginning, or steam beginning; then consider the direction and magnitude of temperature change).
Dredd… Did you miss what I posted?
Woosty’s still a Cat 1, March 18, 2012 at 9:45 am
“In other words, as water cools it shrinks, but as it warms it expands.”
————————-
Dredd, then why can I not fill my icecube trays to the rim….(they overflow when freezing…)
is a conundrum…..
======================================
When you take the ice out of the fridge and set it on the bar, thawing begins and eventually it will be back to the original volume and the original form, water.
Then, if you put a candle under the tray after it thaws, the water will begin to expand in volume just like it did when it was converting into ice, and it will eventually overflow the tray like it did when it was frozen.
As I said up-thread, using ice cube trays to analyze sea level rise will lead you to Bdaman Island where Bill Nye the science guy is trippin’ on BS, if you do not consider context, as well as beginning state and changed state dynamics.
Like Einstein said, make things as simple as possible, but no more than that.
Oversimplification is falsehood just as much as exaggeration is falsehood.
BTW, don’t use the conundrum either, ’cause Santorum thinks abstinence is the holier of the two.
anon nurse 1, March 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
Dredd… Did you miss what I posted?
=============================
How do I tell?
Like Einstein said, make things as simple as possible, but no more than that.
The theory of Global Warming.
The more CO2 pumped into the atmosphere, (here’s the part I like) mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels, (never mind 97% of CO2 released into the atmosphere comes from nature) will increase the worlds surface temperature. In order to keep us safe, a limit has been established of 350 ppm of atmospheric CO2 the so called safe zone. See 350.org. As the temperature increases all weather events get worse. Stronger hurricanes, more tornadoes, more droughts more floods etc etc.
We are now at a level of a little over 390 ppm. In spite of being above the so called safe zone of 350ppm established by one of the worlds most prominent experts on climate science. There has been no warming for the last 15 years and THERE HAS BEEN NO UPWARD TREND in any of the weather events that are noted to increase along with global temperatures.
As a little known fact, we know that
The world’s ten deadliest floods occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
24 of the deadliest tornado’s happened when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
The strongest and deadliest US hurricanes occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
Nine of the world’s ten deadliest hurricanes and typhoons occurred when CO2 was below 350 ppm.
World wide tropical cyclone activity remains near 30 year lows.
We are in the longest period in recorded history of a major hurricane strike on the United States currently over 2200 days and will likely be over 2500 before the possibility or chance of having one.
Arctic Sea Ice is at it’s highest extent since 2007 so it wont be ice free by 2012 as predicted.
Let me know if this is not simple enough for you.
SB WITHOUT a major hurricane strike
Bdaman,
…
Arctic Sea Ice is at it’s highest extent since 2007 so it wont be ice free by 2012 as predicted.
Let me know if this is not simple enough for you.
======================================
The simplicity is that extent and volume are not the same.
In your context extent is square miles, but the proper value is cubic miles.
Very simply and very different.
There is constantly less ice volume of overland-ice at both poles each year, and that volume is decreasing at an accelerating rate.
Bdaman 1, March 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
Like Einstein said, make things as simple as possible, but no more than that.
The theory of Global Warming.
=========================
Quite simple in theory.
The theory of global warming is: “z = x – y”, where “z” is the amount of warming increase or decrease,”x” is incoming photons from the Sun, and “y” is heat radiated from the Earth into space.
X is substantially consistent
y is decreasing
z is increasing
The green house effect (the increasing value of “y”) is caused by green house gases in the atmosphere. There are many of them. They prevent the heat from escaping into space, and thus, warming increases.
Bdaman 1, March 18, 2012 at 11:18 am
…
said:
Your fear won’t even allow you to finish your own sentence without your amygdala tripping a countermeasure sentence to make you feel safe. You interrupt yourself often..
z = x – y
“y” is the blanket of the Earth (green house gas) that keeps a certain amount of “x” (sunlight heat) from escaping back into space after it reaches the Earth.
If that heat did not escape the Earth would die, so the proper amount of “y” is what is critical.
Too much “y”, if we put on more blankets, i.e. more green house gases, means the heat stays, and the value of “z” increases, which translates eventually into global warming.
That blanket increase does not depend on the thickness of the blanket, whether it is 3% of CO2, or 10% is irrelevant. What is relevant is too much blanket. Too much blanket means too much heat. Given enough time it spreads.
Events get worse depending on the degree of heat increase. When that degree reaches a critical amount, critical things witll happen.
You need to focus on temperature, not ppm, it is global warming, not global ppm. The ppm is not linked in time like heat is.
Hogwash.
Cherry picked, conflated, and erroneous conclusion as a result.
Bdaman,
I took these quotes about 350 ppm from the site you claim to get you values from:
Intellectual dishonesty is not a good thing Bdaman. Loose it.
*Nevermind, Dredd.
I think if was a case of missed postings. Thanks for the additional info.
*in Gilda’s voice
There is constantly less ice volume of overland-ice at both poles each year, and that volume is decreasing at an accelerating rate.
At both Poles ? give me a fucking break.
But how can it be at an accelerating rate. How do we know what an accelerating rate is Dredd when I posted
” For the first time, the melting of glaciers in Greenland could now be measured with high accuracy from space. Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the twin satellites GRACE ”
We are doing it with accuracy now. No different than the accuracy of the satellite record for temps. We’ve only been doing that since the 70′s. Besides that, the satellites tell us the melt recorded was 240 gigatons of mass ice loss between 2002 and 2011. This equated to a rise in sea level of just 0.7mm per year. This is by far lower than the average rise of sea level over the long term record of 3.2mm. What is the total amount of gigatonnes of overland ice over Greenland. If the total was 300 gigs to start I would say that thats an alarming rate. Do you know how much the total is ?
Bdaman 1, March 18, 2012 at 2:03 pm
There is constantly less ice volume of overland-ice at both poles each year, and that volume is decreasing at an accelerating rate.
At both Poles ? give me a fucking break.
But how can it be at an accelerating rate. How do we know what an accelerating rate is Dredd when I posted
” For the first time, the melting of glaciers in Greenland could now be measured with high accuracy from space. Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the twin satellites GRACE ”
We are doing it with accuracy now. No different than the accuracy of the satellite record for temps. We’ve only been doing that since the 70′s. Besides that, the satellites tell us the melt recorded was 240 gigatons of mass ice loss between 2002 and 2011. This equated to a rise in sea level of just 0.7mm per year. This is by far lower than the average rise of sea level over the long term record of 3.2mm. What is the total amount of gigatonnes of overland ice over Greenland. If the total was 300 gigs to start I would say that thats an alarming rate. Do you know how much the total is ?
===============================================
You never cite authority except yourself, and you are no authority.
Thus, you spew unfounded opinion, which you have a right to do, however, I also have a right to reject it as rank rubbish.
I do not have that right as to authority.
That is why I cite authority. Authority talks and opinionated bullshit walks,
Now to your rubbish close up:
No breaks for deliberate intellectual dishonesty. It kills.
NASA spoke directly to you years ago:
(NASA). Your denial of experts, combined with the spewing of your rubbish denial opinion, is shameful and disrespectful. No “fucking break” for you asshole!
Back to NASA:
(NASA). You are a psychopath to think intelligent people are going to listen to you whack off in public as you entertain denialism that will eventually lead to catastrophe jackass.
You never cite authority except yourself, and you are no authority.
What are you talking about Dredd I’ve already posted the link to it up thread you blew right past it.
Bdaman 1, March 17, 2012 at 5:56 am
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-03/haog-ic031412.php
So back to the question
” For the first time, the melting of glaciers in Greenland could now be measured with high accuracy from space. Just in time for the tenth anniversary of the twin satellites GRACE ”
We are doing it with accuracy now. No different than the accuracy of the satellite record for temps. We’ve only been doing that since the 70′s. Besides that, the satellites tell us the melt recorded was 240 gigatons of mass ice loss between 2002 and 2011. This equated to a rise in sea level of just 0.7mm per year. This is by far lower than the average rise of sea level over the long term record of 3.2mm. What is the total amount of gigatonnes of overland ice over Greenland. If the total was 300 gigs to start I would say that thats an alarming rate. Do you know how much the total is ?
and just in case you need a refresher
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262
“Events get worse depending on the degree of heat increase. When that degree reaches a critical amount, critical things witll happen.”
“We are now at a level of a little over 390 ppm. In spite of being above the so called safe zone of 350ppm established by one of the worlds most prominent experts on climate science.”
“You need to focus on temperature, not ppm, it is global warming, not global ppm. The ppm is not linked in time like heat is.”
Me “There has been no warming for the last 15 years”
First off Dredd are you familiar with the Hockey stick. As CO2 increases so does the temp. Does this look like the hockey stick.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
It is why Trenbreth said we cant account for the lack of warming and it’s a travesty we can’t. Then he found the missing heat at the bottom of the ocean, not.
And your expert Mr. Hansen who said the West Side Hwy along the Hudson in NY should be underwater by now is running below even his best case scenario, scenario C even though CO2 is passed his so called safe zone. Red line equals actual and the graph is what was submitted to congress.
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_39-Dec.-21-13.21.gif
Bdaman, you and your l’il buddy Bron are preaching to yourselves. A choir of two, if I might phrase it that way. No one except the two of you are paying attention to your denialism. Has it not come to your attention, that in spite of the dozens of comments you have posted, you have not convinced another single solitary person?
Maybe not here O.S. but there is a life outside of the JT Blog.
Dredd what does this blue line mean
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_stddev_timeseries.png
Melting at both poles. Dude what ever your smoking you need to market it.
You know as I was fishing today I was thinking about sea level rise while the boat was bobbing up and down. We know that the sea is rising, no question. The long term trend is, it’s been rising at a rate of 3.2mm per year according to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and I understand how it rises and as we’ve now seen fall 5mm in the 2010 to11. I just went back to the JPL website and they have adjusted the number from 6mm to 5mm in the last 24 hours with no explanation or update. Anyways, doesn’t matter, but here’s what I was thinking.
If the rise of the ocean is such great concern wouldn’t it make sense to open the drain. In other words, if you forget the tub is filing up and it’s about to over flow don’t you open the drain to let the water out so it doesn’t spill on the floor ? So why are we not pumping water out of the ocean on to land. Who are the people of the earth who could most benefit from this. The Africans could. Why have we not built water desalinization plants in Africa along the coast to provide those people with clean drinkable water if sea level rise is such a great concern. Not only would they have water to drink but water to irrigate. They could grow there own food. Could plant trees to suck up CO2. Could build huge man made lakes and build fish farms and feed themselves. Instead we let them starve and when it becomes a crisis we send them rice. Just sayin.
Bdaman:
great idea. Why not, we could get the Saudis to pay for it.
I dont know if you could process enough water to make a difference though. All the water ends up in the oceans eventually anyway, the land and the aquifers are just temporary storage devices.
Otteray Scribe:
“Has it not come to your attention, that in spite of the dozens of comments you have posted, you have not convinced another single solitary person?”
Has it come to your attention that we arent trying to change your mind?
Bron 1, March 19, 2012 at 7:59 am
Otteray Scribe:
“Has it not come to your attention, that in spite of the dozens of comments you have posted, you have not convinced another single solitary person?”
Has it come to your attention that we arent trying to change your mind?
Please sir we only want to deal with the facts. The fact is, every weather episode, be it rain, snow, sleet or hail that the alarmist tell us will only get worse with the increase of CO2, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels just ain’t happening. THE FACTS, along with the DATA, show us this is not the case.
Bron what is the old saying give a man a fish and he can feed himself. Teach a man to fish and he can feed his whole family.
Bdaman:
What the hell is going on?
AP and The Washington Post reports:
“The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen , Norway .
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm.
Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.”
Bron what are you smoking
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=17&fy=1983&sm=03&sd=17&sy=2012
Has it come to your attention that if you really aren’t trying to change people’s mind to accept your minority science position, then what you are engaged in is simply a form of mental masturbation? It’s bad enough that you present distorted arguments that have no relationship to the actual problem because you refuse to recognize the actual nature of the problem, but to lie about what you are attempting to do? And you expect people to honestly believe you aren’t trying to change their minds?
Please.
That’s some extraordinary bullshit even coming from you.
But as OS points out, that you fail to persuade anyone speaks to your lack of efficacy. Since you are so ineffective, perhaps you should examine both your “facts” and your persuasive presentation because both are clearly lacking.
http://imb.crrel.usace.army.mil/change.htm
Please sir we only want to deal with the facts. The fact is, every weather episode, be it rain, snow, sleet or hail that the alarmist tell us will only get worse with the increase of CO2, mainly due to the burning of fossil fuels just ain’t happening. THE FACTS, along with the DATA, show us this is not the case.
A 2010 paper in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by Netherlands researcher Laurens Bouwer titled, “Have Disaster Losses Increased Due to Anthropogenic Climate Change?”,
Quote
Studies that did find increases after normalization did not fully correct for wealth and population increases, or they identified other sources of exposure increases or vulnerability changes or changing environmental conditions. No study identified changes in extreme weather due to anthropogenic climate change as the main driver for any remaining trend.
Unquote
Here is what Bouwer concludes on the full set of 22 papers that he reviewed :
Quote
The studies show no trends in losses, corrected for changes (increases) in population and capital at risk, that could be attributed to anthropogenic climate change. Therefore, it can be concluded that anthropogenic climate change so far has not had a significant impact on losses from natural disasters.
Unquote
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1
You mean the same Laurens Bouwer who doesn’t have a Ph.D?
http://sppiblog.org/tag/laurens-bouwer
Yeah. I’m going to take what he says as seriously as I’m going to take what you or Breitbart would say, Bdaman.
If you’re going to appeal to authority?
You should make sure they are really an authority first.
One not need a PHD to be right Gene.
SPPI NOTE: What follows is a series of postings about the lack of qualifications of some key authors of past IPCC reports on climate — which reports are used by governments the world over to justify policy on anything from energy to “social justice” schemes for transferring wealth within and between nations.
Source: No Frakking Consensus
Notice the source Gene. So what you did was point to an article about how the IPCC can not be trusted because most have not recieved a PHD while working for the IPCC and the source they used is from a denier called no fakking consensus. Good One Gene
Continuing on Gene
Let us repeat this: at the time Bouwer joined the ranks of the IPCC’s best and brightest he had yet to complete his Masters. According to his university bio, his credentials are as follows:
Academic training
1995-2001: Master’s degree Physical Geography, Vrije Universiteit
The same year the IPCC report for which he’d served as a lead author was published, Bouwer finally earned this designation.
A little more for you Gene had you read on instead of cherry picked. Your gonna love this one it just backs up what I said to start.
QUOTE
The IPCC’s task is to evaluate all the relevant scientific findings pertaining to climate change and to write a report summarizing what we know and don’t know – so that governments around the world can make sound decisions.
Are there people capable of performing this task who don’t possess a PhD? Yes. Eminent theoretical physicist and longtime Princeton University professor Freeman Dyson, for example, never got around to completing a doctorate. But one of the reasons we know Dyson is an exceptional intellect is because he has been winning international science awards since the 1960s. Bouwer’s academic bio provides little indication that he is the next Dyson.
The IPCC surely needs to explain how research assistants and those-working-on-their-masters qualify as the worlds best experts and top scientists.
UNQUOTE
Your not the best or the brightest either Gene even though you claim your smarter than 99 oops, 97 percent.
What I did was point to a source that discredited your source of choice for cherry picked data. That they happen to have a spin agenda that coincides with yours simply shows your ineptness a cherry picking data. That what happens when you leap before you look, Bdaman.
And I could give a fuck what a troll like you thinks about me, Bdaman.
Oh how I love this one Gene
So, in the 15 years prior to earning her PhD, Kovats served once as a contributing author and twice as a lead author for the IPCC.
Which means governments around the world have been relying on the expertise of grad students when they make multi-billion-dollar climate change decisions.
Gene I love you. You are truly one of the best and brightest.
Not all of them are grad students, Bdaman. Just the one you had the misfortune to cherry pick.
Well I’m glad you love me because I’m completely indifferent to the opinions of me held by anonymous cherry picking trolls.
Hey Gene did you notice the title to the article you linked to. I just looked and had know idea this is what it said
Meaning I posted this comment
Gene I love you. You are truly one of the best and brightest.
only to go read in full top to bottom the Article you linked to
“Not Really the “Best and Brightest” at the IPCC”
Thanks for the link at of all I’ve read on the matter I have never read that.
And your point is? Not all of the IPCC agree on AGW being real. Just the majority of them. You lapping up the ones who don’t agree that AGW is real only goes to show your bias even further. You mistake me for somebody who thinks cherry picked data is worth a damn.
Gene next time after you do your google search you may want to click on the homepage of the link you pick to get an idea of what kind of site YOU PICKED.
http://sppiblog.org/ is a denialist site.
No shit, Sherlock. I didn’t pick them because I agreed with their agenda. I picked them because they pointed out your expert of choice wasn’t really an expert you should be appealing to as an authority.
No Gene my point is that you brought up how he didn’t have a PHD so there for could not be trusted and he worked for THE IPCC. Then later we find out that many who work for the IPCC while being lead authors on subject matters did not have PHD as well. By your thinking this would mean that like Bouwer all who work for the IPCC who do not hold a PHD are not to be trusted and they must not know what they are talking about.
In other words most of the lead authors to studies on climate change to which the worlds leaders base their decisions are from kids 30 years old or less who don’t have a PHD at the time of the authorship.
It’s truly a fascinating article.
Or better yet, let me dumb this down for you: the authority you as a denier appealed to was already discredited by other deniers.
That’s quality work in the cherry picker there, Bdaman.
No shit, Sherlock. I didn’t pick them because I agreed with their agenda. I picked them because they pointed out your expert of choice wasn’t really an expert you should be appealing to as an authority.
Not only mine THEY GOT A WHOLE FREAKING LIST.
Face it. You appealed to the wrong authority for your cherry picked data. You followed up with a composition error concerning the IPCC. Try to spin it however you like.
Oh and by the way Dr. Jeff Masters has referenced Bouwer’s study here.
2011′s Billion-Dollar Disasters: Is Climate Change to Blame?
by Jeff Masters
http://www.weatherwise.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/2012/March-April%202012/dollar-disasters-full.html
and Dr Roger Pielke here.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2012/03/rewriting-academic-literature.html
Two from both sides of the camp who agree with the assessment.
You can try and spin it however you like the FACTS are AGW can not be blamed for extreme weather events. Go ahead it show me.
And let’s take a look at your new BFF’s . . .
“Same Skeptics, New Badges
One of the free-market think tanks listed as a “co-sponsor” of Heartland’s climate change skeptics conference is the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI). SPPI founder and president Bob Ferguson is a featured conference speaker. (Co-sponsoring the skeptics conference does not imply financial support, as Heartland’s website explains.)
SPPI is one of a number of seemingly new climate skeptics groups. However, many are little more than a new website involving veteran skeptics, many of whom are listed as advisers to numerous such groups. SPPI describes itself as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science,” and proclaims that it is “free from affiliation to any corporation or political party.”
In late January, a supporter of SPPI stated on Wikipedia that, according to Ferguson, SPPI “has NEVER had any affiliation with, or funding from, Frontiers of Freedom Foundation (FOF) or Exxon — not ever!” To its credit, Exxon is one of the few corporations that details at least some of its donations to think tanks”
To its shame, Exxon has been a major funder of think tanks that dispute the science of global warming and oppose policies to address it. According to Exxon’s 2007 disclosure report, the oil giant didn’t fund SPPI that year. (Exxon’s 2008 report has not yet been released.)
But that doesn’t say much. SPPI was only founded in mid-2007, after Ferguson left the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), where he had been the Executive Director since CSPP’s formation. CSPP was a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute (FOF). And Exxon funded FOF (pdf), providing $100,000 in 2002 specifically for the “Center for Sound Science and Public Policy” (sic), with $97,000 more for “Global Climate Change Outreach Activities,” and a further $35,000 for “Global Climate Change Science Projects.”
According to its 2004 financial report (pdf), FOF paid Ferguson $100,000. In addition to being the Executive Director, Ferguson served on the group’s Board of Directors. The group’s 2007 financial report (pdf) listed Ferguson as working 40 hours a week for CCSP, but not being paid. So — at least as of 2007 — SPPI has not received Exxon funding, and its only connection to FOF was through Ferguson’s previous employment.
But who funds SPPI? On its website, the group discloses nothing about its funding sources, and does not say if it has a policy on what types of funding it will or won’t accept. Asked directly whether SPPI receives funding from companies with energy interests, Ferguson was not forthcoming. “Funding comes from private interests,” he told me. “That’s all I’m going to say.”
Perhaps Bob Ferguson is trying to be as discreet as Heartland’s James Bast. Perhaps he even thinks, like Bast, that his silence on funders will “keep the focus on the issue.” But the lack of disclosure should sound alarms. News of a global warming skeptics conference automatically raises questions about the funding behind the event. Anyone with a passing familiarity with the increasingly alarming projections of the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions has cause to wonder about the interests being served.
Why Ferguson and Bast think that any sensible person would accept their secrecy — focusing on the activities of the monkey instead of the organ grinder — is beyond me.”
http://www.prwatch.org/node/8258
“The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics website and blog now run by the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which employs SPPI President Robert Ferguson; the SPPI website has drawn heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.
SPPI is not a separate 501(c)(3) nonprofit.
In August 2011, Institute President Robert Ferguson spoke on “Benefit Analysis of CO2″[1] (previously known as “Warming Up to Climate Change: The Many Benefits of Increased Atmospheric CO2″[2]) at the Energy, Environment and Agriculture Task Force meeting at the 2011 American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) Annual Meeting.[3] He was accompanied by Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and MEP Roger Helmer, a Member of the European Parliament for the East Midlands of Great Britain who represents the Conservative Party and has used his position on the European Parliament to fight increased regulation of member states through the European Union.[3]
ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.
Mission
SPPI describes itself as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science.” It also proclaims that it is “free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry.”[4]
Questions
SPPI’s legal status? (not an IRS nonprofit)
Although in March 2011 SPPI’s webpages described it as “a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy…”, in early 2011 Ferguson said SPPI had not been granted nonprofit status from the IRS[5], 3+ years after it was formed.
(An entry in Virginia’s Corporation Records [1] for “Science and Public Policy Institute, The” (#0673507-0) shows SPPI’s directors as Robert E. Ferguson, and two attorneys. But this was reportedly a shell corporation, with no income and no expenditures.[6])
Ferguson employed by CO2Science
The 2009 Form 990 for the Idsos’ Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reports the Center paid Ferguson a base salary of $247,500 plus a $60,000 bonus.
Background
Connections to FoF’s Center for Science and Public Policy
Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, SPPI’s Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded Frontiers of Freedom Institute. SPPI’s blog is run by a web designer who has also reported helping at Frontiers of Freedom.[7]
SPPI is in the same building as CSPP, though in different offices – SPPI at Suite 299[8] and CSPP at Suite 2100.[9]
Timeline
March 2005-May 2007, Ferguson edits CSPP weekly bulletin[10][11]
June 2007, First known SPPI press release issued, supporting the statements made by the then NASA Administrator Michael Griffin questioning global warming. Heartland Institute’s Harriette Johnson was listed as media contact.[12]
July 2007, SPPI begins publishing SPPI eWire, identical in content style to CSPP’s Climate Weekly, Climate and Environment Weekly and Climate and Environment Review.[13]
On SPPI name confusion with Carlo’s SPPI
Ferguson founded and named this group approximately eight years after George L. Carlo had founded the identically-named, pro-public-health Science and Public Policy Institute, to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues.
Ferguson states he was oblivious to the existence of Carlo’s group, and that it was only after registering his organization in Virginia that he discovered Carlo’s group existed, but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery.[14]
Funding
On its website SPPI does not detail the sources of its funding or outline its approach to disclosure.
For past funding (of CSPP) by Exxon, see the “Exxon funding” section of the Frontiers of Freedom page.
Personnel
Displayed
On SPPI’s “Personnel” page, the following names appear:[15]:
Robert Ferguson, SPPI President
Lord Christopher Monckton (UK)
William Kininmonth, (Australia)
Bob Carter (Australia)
Craig Idso of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
David Legates
Joseph D’Aleo
Previously
These additional names were reportedly present in Feb. 2009:
Willie Soon, Chief Science Adviser
James J. O’Brien
Contact Details
Science and Public Policy Institute
209 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Suite 299
Washington, D.C. 20003
5501 Merchants View Square,# 209
Haymarket, VA 20169″
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
ALEC and Monckton!
Who’d have thunk it.
None of which negates that you went against other deniers by cherry picking data from IPCC.
Bdaman,
Show you? You’re either paid to pimp your denier nonsense or you’re a true believer. There is no showing you.
There is no showing you.
Why? because you can’t. You can not show me where tornadoes, floods drought, hurricanes, typhoons, earthquakes, tsunami’s, snow etc etc are increasing over the long term trend. They are decreasing at the moment in spite of atmospheric CO2 increases.
What part of the word “unstable” don’t you understand?
Apparently the same part of it that blocks you from understanding the cyclical nature of instability in complex systems as they move toward tipping points.
It’s been unstable since day one and had nothing to do with the burning of fossil fuels.
Bullshit. Over the long term, the climate of the Earth is changing. Over the short term it has been relatively very stable for very long periods of time. If it hadn’t complex life would have never evolved. The added heat load created by greenhouse gases is creating greater instability and will eventually force a climate shift – i.e. reach a tipping point where damage cannot be undone – as the atmosphere seeks a new level of homeostasis that accounts for the retained heat. Or in the worst case scenario, no homeostasis is possible and we get a runaway greenhouse effect like that seen on Venus.
Or in the worst case scenario, no homeostasis is possible and we get a runaway greenhouse effect like that seen on Venus.
Gene your so full of shit.
Is Venus like earth? No. Does Venus have a day and night within a 24 hour period around the whole planet? NO. Does Venus have water. You know because water vapor is a major part of green house gasses on Earth.
How bout sunlight Gene. Temperatures on the dark side of Venus are basically the same as those on the side facing the sun. Night on Venus lasts for thousands of hours, yet the temperature never cools down. The greenhouse effect is based on the idea that sunlight warms the ground surface, gets re-emitted as radiation, gets absorbed by greenhouse gases and warms us up. Since there is no sunlight at night, we get less greenhouse effect. So how do we explain the high nighttime temperatures on Venus through thousands of hours of no sunlight?
Actually, in the distant past, Venus was a lot more like Earth than it is today. It even had liquid water before the oceans boiled off. If you don’t understand the greenhouse effect as seen on Venus, it’s no wonder you don’t understand the danger of AGW on Earth. Google “Venus greenhouse effect” and do your own homework.
The other 7,000,000,000 people in the nations around the world are beginning to prosecute the denier leaders for crimes.
Seventeen oil denier barons were detained for criminal charges for oil spills in Brazil.
Europe is ginning up for similar prosecutions in the world criminal court.
Gene H.
You may not be aware that Bdaman has a day job. Here is a video of him introducing The Saint of Denialism, Rick Santorum.
RE: global sea level rise:
(USGS). Ten meters is about 32 feet.
The rubbing of salt on the wounds of New Jersey’s shores would be for there to be a drought, so the rising salt water flooded parched lands:
(The Nation).
Dredd the U.S. makes up what percentage of the earths total surface ?
Despite a warm winter in the U.S., global temperatures are in a cooling trend. There has been record or near record snow and ice in Alaska, the Arctic, Antarctic, a brutally cold winter in Europe three years in a row where over 700 people died this year due to cold. Even parts of the Southern Hemisphere are facing a year without a Summer. In fact it is looking like the Arctic will have it’s longest winter on record and sea ice is the most since 2007.
“If Earth’s climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. 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). ”
If If If If if if if if…….. it’s not it’s not it’s not ………….
Dredd which direction is the line heading
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/trend
Bdaman:
there is much debate about Venus and its atmosphere. Gene H is just speculating. There are so many possible explanations about why Venus has the atmosphere it does that no one cause can be considered primary. Or there may be a mechanism which has yet to be identified.
There is even debate on whether Venus had any large amount of water, say comparable to the earth.
Large amounts of sulfates in the atmosphere, lack of a radiation belt, extremely high concentrations of CO2, almost the entire atmosphere is CO2.
Funny thing though, Mars and Mercury dont have radiation belts either.
There are so many forces driving climate, there is no way we can point to one mechanism and say, with any degree of certainty, that man made CO2 or even other chemicals are the cause. To do so is to be either stupid or to have an agenda. I am talking tree stump stupid, not your garden variety stupid. Like the ones who watch Maddow and Olbermann and believe every thing they say.
Bdaman:
So CO2 has a cooling effect on earth. Which is it? Cooling or heating?
Anyone who says they know for a fact earth is heating up because of man doesnt have a clue.
The evidence is overwhelming at this point that climate change has many factors involved, some probably not yet even discovered.
Anyone who believes in AGW also believes in fairies and elves and government’s ability to create wealth.
Probably no coincidence that Mars and Venus have no radiation belt and are climatic basket cases even though relatively earth like in other respects.
Gene doesn’t know what he is talking about.
Dredd links to stories where “if” is repeated.
So CO2 has a cooling effect on earth. Which is it? Cooling or heating?
You tell me
Quote
For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
Unquote
The above quote would certainly point to the reason the planet has been cooling as CO2 increases. Would be a major problem if the increase of CO2 has us headed for a major cool down.
The temperature today at Summit, Greenland -28 F forecast for -35 F
There is no debate on how Venus got to be the way it is today. There is debate as to how much of a role volcanism played in generating the CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere, but there is no debate over the mechanic that drives the Hellish conditions on Venus. That mechanic is the greenhouse effect. End of story. The debate is about how long that process took, not what the process was.
That’s not speculation. Those are the facts. Keep flailing away though.
Really Gene, no more debate. Where have we heard that before ? It rhymes with just that, before.
The science is settled, got that Bron.
Your lack of comprehension does not translate into a debate, Bdaman.
It’s merely your lack of comprehension.
The one thing Gene doesn’t realize is what Venus is under.
I not only know that Venus is under pressure, I know how it got to be under pressure, Bdaman. You wouldn’t like the answer though. It has to do with chemistry.
Of course it probably doesn’t help that Venus is closer to the sun.
People of the earth can you hear me came a voice from the sky on a magical night.
735 °K is the mean temperature on Venus and it is approximately 108,000,000 km from the sun.
Because there is no atmosphere relatively speaking on Mercury, there is a temperature gradient on the day side running from 100 °K at the poles to 700 °K at the equator. Mercury is approximately 55,000,000 km from the sun.
Care to explain why Venus, nearly twice as far from the sun as Mercury, has a mean temperature that is higher than the equatorial peak temperatures on Mercury, Bdaman?
The answer has to do with how atmospheric carbon dioxide retains heat.
Gene H:
“There is no debate on how Venus got to be the way it is today.”
Are you going to stand by that statement?
Bron,
Oh I’m sure you can get some denier nitwit to argue something contrary. However, if you’re going with someone who is going to argue against based on the lack of water vapor in the current Venusian atmosphere, Venus does receive enough sunlight to allow water vapor to rise high enough into the atmosphere to be split into H and O by UV radiation, thus allowing for H to be lost to atmospheric ablation by the solar winds and the O to recombine with denser elements in the atmosphere.
“The amount of methane in the atmosphere is the result of a balance between production on the surface and destruction in the atmosphere. CH4 remains in the atmosphere for between 8 and 12 years. It’s removed by being oxidised in the troposphere, first to carbon monoxide (CO) and finally to CO2 and hydrogen gas (H2).”
The hydrogen could have come from methane. It is a very prolific substance in the universe.
When you try and make the science fit your political views it is very hard to determine the actual truth. That is why science should not be funded by government.
“When you try and make the science fit your political views it is very hard to determine the actual truth.”
Funny you should mention that when quoting a source that has nothing to do with Venus. Methane is not the only greenhouse gas either. We were talking about CO2.
“The amount of methane in the atmosphere is the result of a balance between production on the surface and destruction in the atmosphere. CH4 remains in the atmosphere for between 8 and 12 years. It’s removed by being oxidised in the troposphere, first to carbon monoxide (CO) and finally to CO2 and hydrogen gas (H2).”
This is assuming that you are quoting the only other place I could find this quote, “Impacts of waste on the environment and its management in cities”, by Parin Shah is your source.
“That is why science should not be funded by government.”
Opinion and argument by non-sequitur.
None of this changes that man made greenhouse gases like CO2 are pushing the limits to what the sublimation process can handle. This is seen in the acidification of the oceans among other things.
That was a pathetic flail, Bron.
This is seen in the acidification of the oceans among other things.
Again Gene you don’t know what your talking about. Are you trying to say the ocean is turning into acid ?
Bdaman,
Again, you saying I don’t know what I’m talking about isn’t proving I don’t know what I’m talking about. There is ignorance showing here, but it is not mine. You can just add the process of ocean acidification to the long list of scientifically defined processes that you don’t understand.
Just Google “ocean acidification”.
I did I’m just waiting on your expertise knowledge of the subject.
“In seawater the bicarbonate ion HCO3- is present as free ion for 63 – 81%, 11 – 20% is present as NaHCO3, 6 – 14% as MgHCO3 and 1.5 – 3% as CaHCO3. Of the carbonate ion CO32-, 6 – 8% is present as free ion, 3 – 16% as NaCO3-, 44 – 50% as MgCO3, 7% as Mg2CO32+, 21 – 38% as CaCO3 and 4% as MgCaCO32+ (Kester et al, 1975)”
Gene H:
would you please explain this?
Bdaman,
“I did”
Then you should know enough to make your own case that the ocean’s pH isn’t dropping since you apparently don’t believe it is happening either.
Make your own case.
Bdaman:
You are going to be waiting a very long time.
“Reality has a well-known liberal bias.” – S. Colbert:
(The Republican Brain).
The bullet is about to enter the temple … of doom …
suicidal psychopathsChurch of Ecocide worshipers:(Scientific American).
Is this finally proof we’re NOT causing global warming? The whole of the Earth heated up in medieval times without human CO2 emissions, says new study
Evidence was found in a rare mineral that records global temperatures
Warming was global and NOT limited to Europe
Throws doubt on orthodoxies around ‘global warming’
Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.
It then cooled down naturally and there was even a ‘mini ice age’.
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.
In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2120512/Global-warming-Earth-heated-medieval-times-human-CO2-emissions.html
Almost Ice free
For most of the winter of 2011–2012, the Bering Sea has been choking with sea ice. Though ice obviously forms there every year, the cover has been unusually extensive this season. In fact, the past several months have included the second highest ice extent in the satellite record for the Bering Sea region, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC).
The natural-color image above shows the Bering Sea and the coasts of Alaska and northeastern Siberia on March 19, 2012. The image was acquired by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. Black lines mark the coastlines, many of which have ice shelves or frozen bays extending beyond the land borders.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77461
Scripps Oceanic Institute
Ocean acidification happens all the time — naturally
Until recently we had very little data about real time changes in ocean pH around the world. Finally autonomous sensors placed in a variety of ecosystems “from tropical to polar, open-ocean to coastal, kelp forest to coral reef” give us the information we needed.
It turns out that far from being a stable pH, spots all over the world are constantly changing. One spot in the ocean varied by an astonishing 1.4 pH units regularly. All our human emissions are projected by models to change the world’s oceans by about 0.3 pH units over the next 90 years, and that’s referred to as “catastrophic”, yet we now know that fish and some calcifying critters adapt naturally to changes far larger than that every year, sometimes in just a month, and in extreme cases, in just a day.
Data was collected by 15 individual SeaFET sensors in seven types of marine habitats. Four sites were fairly stable (1, which includes the open ocean, and also sites 2,3,4) but most of the rest were highly variable (esp site 15 near Italy and 14 near Mexico) . On a monthly scale the pH varies by 0.024 to 1.430 pH units.
The authors draw two conclusions: (1) most non-open ocean sites vary a lot, and (2) and some spots vary so much they reach the “extreme” pH’s forecast for the doomsday future scenarios on a daily (a daily!) basis.
At Puerto Morelos (in Mexico’s easternmost state, on the Yucatán Peninsula) the pH varied as much as 0.3 units per hour due to groundwater springs. Each day the pH bottomed at about 10am, and peaked shortly after sunset. These extreme sites tell us that some marine life can cope with larger, faster swings than the apocalyptic predictions suggest, though of course, no one is suggesting that the entire global ocean would be happy with similar extreme swings.
Even the more stable and vast open ocean is not a fixed pH all year round. Hofmann writes that “Open-water areas (in the Southern Ocean) experience a strong seasonal shift in seawater pH (~0.3–0.5 units) between austral summer and winter.”
This paper is such a game changer, they talk about rewriting the null hypothesis:
“This natural variability has prompted the suggestion that “an appropriate null hypothesis may be, until evidence is obtained to the contrary, that major biogeochemical processes in the oceans other than calcification will not be fundamentally different under future higher CO2/lower pH conditions””
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/
Taking Fears of Acid Oceans With a Grain of Salt
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203550304577138561444464028.html#printMode
When will I be able to get help with my job? I work at the Hummer factory. Depending on what type of Hummer you want and who the Hummer is for depends on how much they pay. I get a decent hourly rate, but I feel exposed all the time. They say, if you’ve seen one Hummer you’ve seen them all. This is simply not true.
The ugly delusions of the educated conservative mind:
(Salon).
Don’t miss this one:
(University of California, Davis, 4/13/12).
A Republican gets it:
(Message From GOP Meteorologist). Well sir, that sacrifice is very, very small compared to the one we are going to make if we don’t get with the program.
The last bdaman is no longer standing:
(General Motors Says Global Warming Climate Change Is Real).
“The last bdaman is no longer standing” -Dredd
Dredd,
anon nurse,
The numbers with a dot before them fool some observers, including bdaman, so NASA Scientist Hansen clarifies:
(Mother Nature Is An International Woman). Those amounts are for EACH DAY, not year. That much extra energy is being captured instead of being released into space.
The Navy is bracing for the effects of Global Warming induced climate change:
(U.S. Navy Takes It Seriously)
WHAT? … fifteen thousand record temperatures in the U.S.A. alone:
(MSNBC). The writing is on the wall. These were not caused by things done this decade. More like over the past five decades. That means if we wised up today, we would still suffer for five decades until it leveled out.
A book fossil.
The world’s only dictionary, circa 1404 AD, that has words and word meanings which have never changed: Grandpa’s Abridged – 1404). The glorification of the status quo does nave some disadvantages, however, as the piece points out.
The methane monsters scientists have feared seem to have broken free in the arctic region.
Methane is orders of magnitude more of a powerful green house gas than CO2 is.
The methane seems to have been breathed in by the Navy Command, who are now deceived about global warming induced climate change.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20pStqHvE
from the article:
“The IAC found that “the IPCC has no formal process or criteria for selecting authors” and “the selection criteria seemed arbitrary to many respondents” (p. 18). Government officials appoint scientists from their countries and “do not always nominate the best scientists from among those who volunteer, either because they do not know who these scientists are or because political considerations are given more weight than scientific qualifications” (p. 18). In other words: authors are selected from a “club” of scientists and nonscientists who agree with the alarmist perspective favored by politicians.
The rewriting of the Summary for Policy Makers by politicians and environmental activists — a problem called out by global warming realists for many years, but with little apparent notice by the media or policymakers — was plainly admitted, perhaps for the first time by an organization in the “mainstream” of alarmist climate change thinking. “[M]any were concerned that reinterpretations of the assessment’s findings, suggested in the final Plenary, might be politically motivated,” the IAC auditors wrote. The scientists they interviewed commonly found the Synthesis Report “too political” (p. 25).
Really? Too political? We were told by everyone — environmentalists, reporters, politicians, even celebrities — that the IPCC reports were science, not politics. Now we are told that even the scientists involved in writing the reports — remember, they are all true believers in man-made global warming themselves — felt the summaries were “too political.”
Here is how the IAC described how the IPCC arrives at the “consensus of scientists”:
Plenary sessions to approve a Summary for Policy Makers last for several days and commonly end with an all-night meeting. Thus, the individuals with the most endurance or the countries that have large delegations can end up having the most influence on the report (p. 25).
How can such a process possibly be said to capture or represent the “true consensus of scientists”?
Another problem documented by the IAC is the use of phony “confidence intervals” and estimates of “certainty” in the Summary for Policy Makers (pp. 27-34). Those of us who study the IPCC reports knew this was make-believe when we first saw it in 2007. Work by J. Scott Armstrong on the science of forecasting makes it clear that scientists cannot simply gather around a table and vote on how confident they are about some prediction, and then affix a number to it such as “80% confident.” Yet that is how the IPCC proceeds.”
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html#ixzz20t0iEcQH
We Won the Lottery – Sort of by Lynn (Gather’s Official Not-Poet) P.
First and foremost on the visit list should be St Conan’s Kirk (picture right), a truly breathtaking piece of architecture. Some old, some new, some splendid elegant structures, some just a ruin.