. . . 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
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.
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 ?
*Nevermind, Dredd. 🙂 I think if was a case of missed postings. Thanks for the additional info.
*in Gilda’s voice
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.
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 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,
…
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.
SB WITHOUT a major hurricane strike
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.
anon nurse 1, March 18, 2012 at 10:43 am
Dredd… Did you miss what I posted?
=============================
How do I tell? 😉
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.
Dredd… Did you miss what I posted?
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).
ahhhhhhhhhhhh…. 🙂
what a lovely explanation….I will continue to let my ice cubes do thier thing…
and thanks Anon for the explanation!
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! “
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.
Woosty,
A bad case of contracting trays… 😉
Love the new avatar, though the data sicken me.
“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…..
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.
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. 😉