. . . 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
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.
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).
NASA satellites reveal colossal ice melt, greenhouse gases blamed
New data reveal:
(CSM, emphasis added).
“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.
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.
Yeah, but they made up for the lack of industrial CO2 by having lots of plague.
Argument by non-sequitur; a logical fallacy.
hundreds if not thousands died in Europe 700-800 years ago during a particulary nasty period with no industrial CO2.
Evidence for unstable weather patterns. Who’d have thunk it? With unstable weather being a consequence of AGW and all.
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
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
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.
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.
ID:
which is why I am skeptical about the claims AGWarmers make.
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?
AY
do you have a link please?
here’s one i found when searching youtube for grace.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2I0gVPMtaQE&feature=related
pieces don’t fit anymore.
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?
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.
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,
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.
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