Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared.

[justa bill]

via the new york times... http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/greenlands-glaciers-take-a-breather/

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/tierneylab/posts/helheim533.jpg
Helheim Glacier in southeast Greenland, pictured in 2005, is one of the two glaciers that have slowed down in their flow to the sea. (Photo: NASA/Wallops)

Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared.

It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland’s ice — and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, “average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.”

I asked the lead author of the paper, Ian Howat of the University of Washington, for some perspective. Here’s his take:

Over the past few years there has been a major revolution in the way scientists think about ice sheet response to climate change. Previously, it was assumed that the big ice sheets react very slowly to climate, on the order of centuries to millenia. This is because surface melting and precipitation was thought to be the dominant way in which ice sheets gain and lose mass under changes in climate. However, over the past five years we have observed that the flow speed of the ice sheets, and therefore the rate at which the ice flows to ocean can change dramatically over very short time scales.

By short, he means months or less.

I also asked Dr. Howat about the argument that, since Greenland went through decades of relatively warm weather in the first half of the 20th century without catastrophic consequences, it’s unlikely that the glaciers are suddenly going to plunge into the ocean because of the current warming. His response:

Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s. Of course, we don’t know very much about how the glacier dynamics changed then because we didn’t have satellites to observe it. However, it does suggest that large variations in ice sheet dynamics can occur from natural climate variability. The problem arises in the
possibility that, due to anthropogenic warming, warm phases will become longer and more severe, so that each time the glaciers go through a period of retreat like this, they won’t fully grow back and they will retreat farther the next time.

That sounds like a reasonable concern. But for now, with the glaciers moving in fits and starts, it’s wise not to make any sweeping predictions based on a few measurements. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was criticized for not incorporating the recent scary data from Greenland into its long-range projections, these new results seem to vindicate its caution. As Dr. Howat and his co-authors warn: “Special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends.”

[Homsar]

I wonder if they got the same snowstorm New York got.

Everyone wants answers now now NOW, but when you're talking geologic time, it's very difficult to look at anything that isn't at least a few decades or even hundreds of years. So this could be either a momentary pause in the melting or a reversal of trend. Can't know yet.

[markalot]

Am I the only one left who doubts global warming? I'm sorry, but this is just another example of apparent good science that was conveniently left out of the climate prediction report. How much more is there and how can we possibly know how much we don't know?

That sounds like a reasonable concern. But for now, with the glaciers moving in fits and starts, it’s wise not to make any sweeping predictions based on a few measurements. Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was criticized for not incorporating the recent scary data from Greenland into its long-range projections, these new results seem to vindicate its caution. As Dr. Howat and his co-authors warn: “Special care must be taken in how these and other mass-loss estimates are evaluated, particularly when extrapolating into the future because short-term spikes could yield erroneous long-term trends.”

That's an interesting way of phrasing it. So they left out the scary data, yet this data isn't so scary? Is this really new hot off the presses data?

[BigSugar]

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH..........GLOBAL COOLING!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GLACIERS AREN'T MELTING!!!!!!! HELP ME OBI WAN!

<cough> sorry about that. doesn't anyone else find it funny that greenland is made of ice and iceland is made of green?

[markalot]

AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHH..........GLOBAL COOLING!!!! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!!!!!!!!!!!! THE GLACIERS AREN'T MELTING!!!!!!! HELP ME OBI WAN!

<cough> sorry about that. doesn't anyone else find it funny that greenland is made of ice and iceland is made of green?

It's a classic tale of salesmanship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

Vikings!

[aqualou]

Greenland isn’t melting as fast as we feared.
sorry, i'll get right on that.
http://www.unitedafa.org/cmt/shs/img/air.jpg

[justa bill]

iceland is made of green?

not a whole lot of green in iceland... there is ice and lava fields, and there is some "green" but it's really mostly a greenish yellowy brown. :]

but i don't think there's any green in Groenland. funny though, "Iceland" in Icelandic is "Island". which of course, is "island" in english. :D

[BigSugar]

funny though, "Iceland" in Icelandic is "Island". which of course, is "island" in english. :D

my head just exploded. that is the kind of thing that is amazing when you're high, but hurts when you're sober. :)

[RedRigmaJacket]

"Greenland was about as warm or warmer in the 1930’s and 40’s, and many of the glaciers were smaller than they are now. This was a period of rapid glacier shrinkage world-wide, followed by at least partial re-expansion during a colder period from the 1950’s to the 1980’s."

Damn, you'd think the NYT editors would have caught the incorrect apostrophes in the years... There are no apostrophes in 1950s, 1980s, etc.

Sorry, carry on.

[aqualou]

There are no apostrophes in 1950s, 1980s, etc.
unless it's 1980's music, but in this context you're right. no possessive.

[RedRigmaJacket]

unless it's 1980's music, but in this context you're right. no possessive.


Actually, that would only be if it were for music just from the year 1980. I believe the correct way to write that possessive would be "1980s's music." Looks weird, but that should be right...

[justa bill]

Actually, that would only be if it were for music just from the year 1980. I believe the correct way to write that possessive would be "1980s's music." Looks weird, but that should be right...

wouldn't it be 1980s' music? :confused:

but you know it contributes to global warming to make pointless punctuation posts. some how, i'm sure it does... :D

[justa bill]

my head just exploded. that is the kind of thing that is amazing when you're high, but hurts when you're sober. :)

yeah, i spent some time bending my mind around that one... they pronouce it "ice-land" (or something close to that) but spell it "island". :D

[markalot]

Speaking of cold, this is from the local Cincy forcast discussion (just after they talked about how we might get 4-8 inches of snow Monday night - Tuesday!)

Climate...today Marks the 14th day in a row that it has been below
freezing at cvg...cmh and day. This is not close to a record for
consecutive days below freezing...but it is pretty significant. It
should also be noted that all three locations are currently
working on a record for average temperatures in Feb. Feb 1978 remains the
coldest Feb on record...and the amazing thing to note about this
Feb is that average temperatures are currently running 3-7 degree below the 1978 average. Even more amazing...the average temperature at day through Friday was 9.7 degree. More than half the month remains...but cold weather expected to continue at least for the next week.

What a difference a month makes.

[the happy prole]

Am I the only one left who doubts global warming?

One of the few, yeah. The bulk of science still thinks it is occurring. There's less agreement on how fast or how bad it will be, but you reading one article that says that Greenland isn't melting as fast as they maybe thought and deciding global warming is shit is just as bad as those people you deride for panicking when they read one article that says the opposite. Unless we have a PhDs. and are actively studying this stuff, we're really unqualified to judge one way or the other.

Remember that the measurement of glacier melt is just one way of determining global warming. And the glacier themselves aren't the danger. It's the change in water density that will cause all the flooding.

[Marlowe]

this whole thing is starting to take on the feel of mass hysteria to me. looks like the science is pointing to the earth at least temporarily getting warmer, but i don't see how that should be a surprise to anyone since the temperature has always fluctuated. and we're overdue for another ice age if the earth's biorhytms are to be understood, so maybe this is a good thing.

recent events certainly point to the US and the west needing to ween themselves off of oil as a primary energy source, so i don't necessarily have a problem in some way toward doing that, as long as it isn't too drastic and is market-based rather than onerous and stultifying for the economy. if it helps save us from global warming, i guess that will be a twofer, but to be honest i'm not too worried about global warming, and i don't think you should be either.

[REMgirl]

I highly recommend checking out this website if you are really interested in climate change. It's written by scientists, it's nonpartisan, and it's simple enough for the average Joe to read and understand.

http://www.realclimate.org/

I found this quote by one of the scientists to be pretty good:

"I imagine I'm not alone in finding myself in a quandary when someone asks if I "believe in" global warming. Imagine asking an economist whether they "believe in" inflation. Where does one begin?"

This problem arises from confusion (to some extent deliberately engendered) in the public as to what the term means.

If someone asks me in my capacity as a climate scientist whether I "believe in "global warming", they are not asking the question in a literal sense. They are asking "what am I to make of this confusing topic called "global warming"?

:)

[markalot]

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

[sayer_of_nay]

What point are you trying to make with a Nat Geo from 1976!?

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/DSCN1557-nat-geog-1976_1200x900.JPG

[markalot]

To add,

has this ever been refuted?

http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/giss_fl.htm

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2006/01/19/where-is-the-newly-recognized-uncertainty-in-the-global-surface-temperature-record-assessed-in-the-giss-surface-temperature-record/

Summary:

Seeking enlightenment from Dr Jim Hansen of GISS I was told that;

* yes the adjustments above looked questionable;
* this happened because some of the rural areas in Florida did not come out black enough in the satellite night lights images which leads to the computer treating them as some category of Urban;
* then data "smoothing" leads to insertion of the above warming trends;
* it's really not kosher to go in on a case by case basis;
* our approach is to set up an objective scheme and then let the computer and the satellite make the decision - its not necessarily the best way, but its objective, even though, as our caveat states, it is going to give "bad" results at some individual stations.


The caveat referred to above is from a paper in press at Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, titled, "A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change", by J. Hansen, R. Ruedy, M. Sato of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies NY, M. Imhoff, W. Lawrence of NASA Goddard Space Flight Center MD and D. Easterling, T. Peterson and T. Karl of NOAA National Climatic Data Center NC.

I am sure interested readers can obtain a copy of this paper from GISS.


The reason this came up is because someone at Weather Underground grabbed daily temperature data for their location for the last 100+ years (as recorded from forecaster observations) and graphed it. They discovered a cooling trend, not a warming trend. They also discovered that most record cold events happened in the last 30 years while most record warm events happened more like 100 years ago. The satellite temp data for his location is not available for free to the public so he can't determine if that data has been mangled or not. What he wants to do is compare actual forcaster on the ground readings with the 'corrected' satellite readings to see just how accurate they are.

You would think someone would have done this just to verify the accuracy of the satellite readings and they have.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170

and in the comments this link to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satellite_Temperatures.png

Note: In the above figure, there is still a significant discrepancy between the very earliest satellite measurements and the ground based measurements at that time. For this reason only the interval 1982-2005 was used in calculating each trend. Including the earliest years leads to a wider dispersion , with trends of 0.170°C/decade, 0.116°C/decade, and 0.192°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS data respectively. The origin of this discrepancy is unclear.

This is a single location with discrepancies and unexplained errors prior to 1982.

[markalot]

What point are you trying to make with a Nat Geo from 1976!?

Isn't it interesting that from just 30 years ago they could plot a graph that did not show global warming? Is that graph bad science? If it's not then we are basing our global warming claims on 30 years of data.

You can get the data to do what you want.

Remember my claim is that if we would have just 10 years of colder than normal weather this rapid warming period would just be a bump on the graph.

[justa bill]

And the glacier themselves aren't the danger. It's the change in water density that will cause all the flooding.

wha? uh... dude, where do you think the water that may cause flooding comes from? yeah, many people are saying that the glaciers are disappearing. and it's funny how you deride MaL for having a healthy skepticism about all of this. do you really think that if a person isn't a PhD they can't even have an opinion on the matter. "just shut up and listen to the man" i guess you're saying. whatever...

and that's a great aricle, mal. :D 1976 i see at the bottom of the page... and you're hardly the only one who has doubt's about all of this.

i've said it before, i'm no PhD or anything but i destinctly remember always being told in elementary school that one of the reasons the Vikings made it to "Vinland" was that the world was warmer 1,000 years ago. but... it was beginning to cool. maybe "Groenland" really was a lot more "groen" then... :]

but for me it comes down to the fact there are many many reasons to worry about the environment before you get to anything as difficult for humans to understand or prove as "man-made global climate change". (i can think of about six billion reasons just sitting here.)

that's part of the reason i posted this. i found it hidden away in the NewYorkTimes' "blog page". when there's a new study stating something the opposite of this study it's usually on the front freakin' page.

personally, i chose to live and work in an area where i can primarily walk because it's better for my quality of life, but it's also probably going to mean i'm damaging the environment far less than most people in the western world... I am absolutely CERTAIN that Al Gore (to name just one) was singlehandedly resposible for the burning of more hydrocarbon fuels in 2006 alone than i will be in my entire lifetime. :|

[REMgirl]

"that's part of the reason i posted this. i found it hidden away in the NewYorkTimes' "blog page". when there's a new study stating something the opposite of this study it's usually on the front freakin' page."

But that article you posted was an opinion piece by a writer for the Times. He's not a scientist, he's a well-known Libertarian who questions the validity of recycling. Not that questions about climate change shouldn't be asked, but the majority of legitimate science is sure. Why not err on the side of caution and take some steps toward cleaning up the environment anyway?

:)

[justa bill]

But that article you posted was an opinion piece by a writer for the Times. He's not a scientist, he's a well-known Libertarian who questions the validity of recycling. Not that questions about climate change shouldn't be asked, but the majority of legitimate science is sure. Why not err on the side of caution and take some steps toward cleaning up the environment anyway?

:)

yeah, it was not an opinion; it was a report about the recently annouced findings of a study by the University of Washington and the University of Colorado. just because someone, say a journalist, has written opinion pieces it does not mean everything they write is an opinion piece. duhhh :p ;)

but really, this was the Science report he refers to: (i thought i'd spare everyone the calving details. 'cause, it's not like we're PhDs or anything. :D


Reports
Submitted on December 6, 2006
Accepted on January 24, 2007


Rapid Changes in Ice Discharge from Greenland Outlet Glaciers
Ian M. Howat 1*, Ian R. Joughin 2, Ted A. Scambos 3
1 Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA; National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, 1540 30th Street, Boulder, CO, 80309-0449, USA.
2 Polar Science Center, Applied Physics Lab, University of Washington, 1013 NE 40th Street, Seattle, WA 98105-6698, USA.
3 National Snow and Ice Data Center, University of Colorado, 1540 30th Street, Boulder, CO, 80309-0449, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Ian M. Howat , E-mail: ihowat@apl.washington.edu


Using satellite-derived surface elevation and velocity data, we find major short-term variations in recent ice discharge and mass-loss at two of Greenland's largest outlet glaciers. Their combined rate of mass-loss doubled in less than a year in 2004 and then decreased in 2006 to near the previous rates, likely due to fast re-equilibration of calving front geometry following retreat. Total mass-loss is a fraction of concurrent gravity-derived estimates, pointing to an alternative source of loss and the need for high-resolution observations of outlet dynamics and glacier geometry for sea-level rise predictions.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1138478v1

Tierney just took the time to find it...

Why not err on the side of caution and take some steps toward cleaning up the environment anyway?

:)

yeah, did you read what i had just posted? there are tons of aurguments for taking care of the environment. if man-made global climate change were to be proven false, would people just "throw out the baby with the melted-glacial-ice bath water" and go back to clear cutting forests and flying around the world for the hell of it? hold on... they've never really stopped. :(

[Homsar]

wha? uh... dude, where do you think the water that may cause flooding comes from?

i've said it before, i'm no PhD or anything but i destinctly remember always being told in elementary school that one of the reasons the Vikings made it to "Vinland" was that the world was warmer 1,000 years ago.
So just because someone might have a PhD means you doubt what they say because you remember learning something in elementary school? I'd be interested in hearing about how and how much the water density of the oceans would change.

This handy link (http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml) shows the "maximum sea level rise potential" of the Antarctic Greenland ice sheets, the two largest ice sheets on Earth. That is, the number of meters the Earth's oceans would rise if these ice sheets melted completely. That number is almost 80 meters. That would cover pretty much all of Florida. As doubtful as it is to consider the Earth's ice sheets all melting completely, do you really want the senior citizens moving back up here?

[purple_octopus]

As doubtful as it is to consider the Earth's ice sheets all melting completely, do you really want the senior citizens moving back up here?
This past week, global warming has sounded pretty damn good. But this is the best argument for preventing global warming that I've ever heard.

[dannyboy]

We supposedly have a major winter storm bearing down on us within the next 48 hours and the "experts" can't even nail down with 100% accuracy the specifics of storm track and precipitation type and amounts.

[Homsar]

Yeah, they're probably much better with trends than specifics. What Christopher Lloyd said in Back to the Future 2 would never happen. Something like "I wish the postal service was as reliable as the weather forecast." This being after he knew to the second when the rain would cease. Impossible.

[the happy prole]

wha? uh... dude, where do you think the water that may cause flooding comes from?

The water that's already in the ocean. Water reaches it's maximum density at slightly above freezing. Ice is actually less dense than water which is why it floats, and why melting ice cubes won't raise the level of water in a glass.

That's how Rush Limbaugh "proved" that global warming won't cause flooding. What he conveniently over looked is that a lot of ice mass is attached to land. It's technically not part of the ocean (yet). If that stuff melts, the oceans will rise. But even if that doesn't happen, just raising the average temperature level of the ocean a few degrees will cause mass flooding.

So the glaciers in Greenland are only part of the picture. Most likely, if they're melting that also means ocean temperatures are rising as well so we're going to get both barrels. That's why they are a good measure. But it's possible the surface temperature over that Greenland changes slower than ocean temperatures and it's the ocean expansion that does the real damage.

[DaHood]

That's how Rush Limbaugh "proved" that global warming won't cause flooding.He's so fucking brilliant. :rolleyes: Damn, I miss listening to Rush. He's a hoot.

[justa bill]

The water that's already in the ocean. Water reaches it's maximum density at slightly above freezing. Ice is actually less dense than water which is why it floats, and why melting ice cubes won't raise the level of water in a glass.

That's how Rush Limbaugh "proved" that global warming won't cause flooding. What he conveniently over looked is that a lot of ice mass is attached to land. It's technically not part of the ocean (yet). If that stuff melts, the oceans will rise. But even if that doesn't happen, just raising the average temperature level of the ocean a few degrees will cause mass flooding.

So the glaciers in Greenland are only part of the picture. Most likely, if they're melting that also means ocean temperatures are rising as well so we're going to get both barrels. That's why they are a good measure. But it's possible the surface temperature over that Greenland changes slower than ocean temperatures and it's the ocean expansion that does the real damage.

so are you really saying that the oceans are going to become "less dense" and that will cause sea-level to rise?! ya know most of the ocean is much warmer than "slightly above freezing", right?

yeah, the predictions about sea-level rising believe that ice on the Antarctic continent--and places like Greenland--will melt and and "new" water will be added to world's oceans. (i've always wondered: if the world gets warmer and glaciers melt maybe the world will actually "just" get more humid:-)

and where did you see anything about "surface temperature over that Greenland" (is how you put it) in the study? they're measuring "mass loss". they don't even mention temperature... :rolleyes:

[the happy prole]

so are you really saying that the oceans are going to become "less dense" and that will cause sea-level to rise?! ya know most of the ocean is much warmer than "slightly above freezing", right?

Yes. You realize that's the whole point, right?

[markalot]

Melting ice will not raise the ocean temp, but may make it less salty. Salt water is denser than fresh water. Someone wake me when the floods start.

[the happy prole]

Right now, the glaciers are attached to a land mass and not in the ocean. They melt and turn into water, and the water flows into the ocean which causes an increase in volume.

At the same time, the oceans will undergo thermal expansion from increases in water temperature.

The glaciers are fresh water and very cold. Heating the oceans will increase evaporation, but then the evaporation will just rain back into the ocean. The oceans are not uniform in density, temperature or salinity right now. If enough glacial water melts into the ocean, changes in salinity could screw us over. Or violent storms and tsunamis could devastate a lot of areas even if the rising water levels don't kill us. Or the changes to the ocean could screw up some crucial ecosystems.
Or we could just die from air pollution or lack of fresh water instead. Or nothing could happen at all.

This stuff isn't easy to model. The thing that's irritating about the global warming scenario is that the media has presented it as some doomsday "perfect storm" situation. X will cause Y, Y will cause Z, which will cause even more X, and then that makes B happen and then we all die. It makes it easier for both sides to spin their stories. The doomsday scenario appeals to environmentalists. The skeptics can just look at that long series of events and say "C'mon, things won't get out of whack that quickly."

The truth is, global warming will trigger a lot of independent events. If a giant tsunami comes and wipes out New York, it would be a small event on the geological level but it would be still be pretty bad news for us. Or some third world country loses their food supply or the humidity cause mosquitos to breed like mad and we get some crazy plague.

There's a lot of different ways this could hurt us. Everyone's totally fixated on melting glaciers and biblical levels of devastation. If people would instead think about all the "small" bad things that can happen with fossil fuels (including just running out) you could craft some policy that actually makes sense.

[markalot]

There's a lot of different ways this could hurt us. Everyone's totally fixated on melting glaciers and biblical levels of devastation. If people would instead think about all the "small" bad things that can happen with fossil fuels (including just running out) you could craft some policy that actually makes sense.

I think everyone here is for that. I know my main concern is how we're going to run out of stuff to 'burn'.

Weather happens. If global warming is the rage then some extreme weather event will be blamed on global warming. If we're cooling then it will be blamed on cooling. People need something to blame stuff on, which is what I believe is feeding this frenzy.

Solar power (and in a way this includes power derived from the ocean) is the only way to produce energy without using up stuff.

[akip]

This stuff isn't easy to model. The thing that's irritating about the global warming scenario is that the media has presented it as some doomsday "perfect storm" situation. X will cause Y, Y will cause Z, which will cause even more X, and then that makes B happen and then we all die. It makes it easier for both sides to spin their stories. The doomsday scenario appeals to environmentalists. The skeptics can just look at that long series of events and say "C'mon, things won't get out of whack that quickly."

The truth is, global warming will trigger a lot of independent events. If a giant tsunami comes and wipes out New York, it would be a small event on the geological level but it would be still be pretty bad news for us. Or some third world country loses their food supply or the humidity cause mosquitos to breed like mad and we get some crazy plague.

There's a lot of different ways this could hurt us. Everyone's totally fixated on melting glaciers and biblical levels of devastation. If people would instead think about all the "small" bad things that can happen with fossil fuels (including just running out) you could craft some policy that actually makes sense.

this is actually pretty much what a nobel laureate physicist told once me. i asked him about the theory that global warming would actually lead to a deep freeze in europe (desalination of the ocean changing the direction of the jet stream so that the northern countries wouldn't have that moderating wind flow). he said that it's impossible to model climate very far out---it's just too complex. he said, however, that that doesn't mean that we shouldn't worry about it. atmospheric change is of catastrophic concern. we just don't know how that change will play itself out.

[markalot]

Don't forget unions (which is covered by economics).

We have the technology to produce electric cars that will last for 20-30 years, I have no doubt. That would put millions of people out of work. If you think about it we could probably apply technology and put most people out of work, or at least require these people to rapidly transition to a non-manual job.

[DaHood]

When the plankton dies we'll all be eating soylent green.

[justa bill]

Yes. You realize that's the whole point, right?

from my limited understanding (i.e. things i learned in elementary school-:p), most of the ocean is very cold because a football field deep (yeah 100 yards) there is barely any sunlight present. hell, things get pretty dark pretty quick in the ocean. so... if all that water stays cool, it's the top 10 or 15 yards of the ocean that are "expanded" regardless of the total depth or total volume of the ocean below that. you still need an independent supply of water to raise levels. every study or theory i've ever seen always talks about "surface temporatures" of the ocean warming... feel free to post some info you might have though...

and i don't see how "making the sea less-salty" raises sea-level either. that would be an obvious result of the sea-level rising, but not a cause. (or are you blaming desalination plants? :D)

but i'm glad Al Gore is flying around the world burnig copious amounts of jet fuel in the upper atmosphere just so he can give PowerPoint presentations. :rolleyes:

[REMgirl]

This was at Media Matters.org:

"After lauding Connaughton's purported credentials as an environmentalist, Easterbrook went on to point out that, in one scene from An Inconvenient Truth, Gore is seen boarding an airplane. "If 'really changing our way of life' is imperative, what's Gore doing getting on a jetliner?" Easterbrook asked. "Jets number among the most resource-intensive objects in the world." This observation led him to fault the film for "its carelessness about moral argument." But Easterbrook, in making this accusation, ignored that Gore, his wife Tipper, and the employees of Generation Investment Management, his London-based investment firm, are reportedly extremely conscious of their carbon consumption. From a profile in the May 2006 issue of Wired:

The Gores and all the employees of Generation lead a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle, reducing their energy consumption when possible and purchasing so-called offsets available on newly emerging carbon markets. Gore says he and Tipper regularly calculate their home and business energy use -- including the carbon cost of his prodigious global travel. Then he purchases offsets equal to the amount of carbon emissions they generate. Last year, for example, Gore and Tipper atoned for their estimated 1 million miles in global air travel by giving money to an Indian solar electric company and a Bulgarian hydroelectric project."

So while they can't avoid air travel, they are compensating for it as best they can...

[BigSugar]

when i fart, i'm going to purchase the nearest hot girls "farting rights offsets" so that my farts won't smell. what a great deal. i'm going to start a non-existent solar company and since i have the "right" to throw X kilo's of crud into the air (but don't b/c i don't exist), i'm going to then make a bundle selling my "rights" to the Gores. ahhhh.....common sense. it's not just for breakfast anymore.

[markalot]

The Gores and all the employees of Generation lead a "carbon-neutral" lifestyle,

For that to be true both AL and Tipper would have to stop talking.

[DaHood]

For that to be true both AL and Tipper would have to stop talking.Some of your best work. :p

[Homsar]

"Carbon-neutral."

Lame.

[the happy prole]

from my limited understanding (i.e. things i learned in elementary school-:p), most of the ocean is very cold because a football field deep (yeah 100 yards) there is barely any sunlight present. hell, things get pretty dark pretty quick in the ocean. so... if all that water stays cool, it's the top 10 or 15 yards of the ocean that are "expanded" regardless of the total depth or total volume of the ocean below that. you still need an independent supply of water to raise levels. every study or theory i've ever seen always talks about "surface temporatures" of the ocean warming... feel free to post some info you might have though...

Look it up yourself. I don't mean that in a dick way. I mean if you just do a google search for "global warming thermal expansion" or something you'll find dozens of entries. Some people think it's not going to be a big deal, and some people think it will be worse than the glaciers melting. So pick an article you like and decide for yourself.

[justa bill]

was it asking too much to have you copy/paste one of those here?

whatever. i guess maybe you're afraid to pick one for fear that it's full of sh!t. :shrug: but i'm not mad at ya. :D

1 million miles in global air travel by giving money to an Indian solar electric company and a Bulgarian hydroelectric project."

i didn't know Gore was catholic. "oh, i'm sorry i've already burned and continue to burn tons of hydrocarbon fuel. four 'hail marys' and two 'green energy projects'." he keeps flying and promoting himself but buys some guilty conscience-relief when it all starts to bug him.

does he buy "credits" to offset the environmental impact of those construction projects, or are they LEED certified, "green building" projects from start to finish? i'm guessing both of those projects would have happened even without Al and Tipper, but the jet fuel they burn would not be burnt without Al and Tipper.

i really didn't post this to get into the Bores, but i do think this study shows a lot of the holes in most 'global warming' theories that i've seen. if someone looked primarily at the last two years in Greenland they may think we're going to freeze over soon... :rolleyes: of course, like the authors of this study they'd probaby just ask for more money so they can keip flying over Greenland to study it some more. :D

mean while problems that don't need further study continue to mount. imagine that if half of the money and energy spent studying g.warming was spent on building green roofs in downtown L.A. or... helping people in Darfur. it makes one not want to care...

[the happy prole]

Alright, here you go: http://www.science.org.au/nova/082/082key.htm

"While thermal expansion is a less obvious process than melting ice (mainly because you can't see it happening) the IPCC projects that thermal expansion will be the main component of expected sea-level rises over the 21st century."

IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, UN's task force on the subject.

But see, now you're just going to google up a study that disagrees with the above and I'm sure you can find one, so what was the point in me looking that up for you? :p

[markalot]

We'll just pull the plug and drain a few billion gallons. What's the big deal?

[silentpaul]

Mars is a little dry. Why not send some of the excess there? If we're going to colonize there (after the Revolution, of course) we'll need a good water supply...

[markalot]

Here ya go Prole, a reference to thermal expansion

http://www.weatherunderground.com/blog/RickyRood/comment.html?entrynum=6&tstamp=200702


INCREMENTS OR CATASTROPHE
It is interesting how quickly the discussion of climate change gets anchored around a particular topic. Sometimes it is, “what car should I buy?” Here we have moved to sea level rise, geo-engineering and island cities along the Atlantic Coast. In “Climate Change 2007” the observed sea level rise is divided up between its sources: thermal expansion of the ocean, melting of glaciers and ice caps, and melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The report considers the measured sea level rise between 1961 and 2003 and separates out the last 10 years, 1993-2003. Two facts that I note: 1) the largest part of sea level rise, so far, is from thermal expansion of the ocean. The ocean has absorbed a lot of heat, which can be measured to a depth of 3000 meters. Heating water causes it to expand. 2) The rate of the sea level rise is significantly larger in the last ten years of the record. This, again, is a set of correlated observations, consistent with the predictions of a warming climate – another “fingerprint.”

In 2003 the Government Accounting Office produced a report on the vulnerability of coastal “Alaskan Villages” to flooding and erosion. There are already villages moving to higher ground, adapting to higher temperatures. This links to a summary from the American Association for the Advancement of Science that discusses the situation in Shismaref, Alaska. Alaska is at high northern latitudes; it is the part of the United States which sits at a place where both the observed and predicted temperature changes are large.

The situation in Alaska, today, raises many questions. There is the reality of the expense of moving long established communities – a cost which is not recovered by tangible economic benefit. This raises questions of ethics and liability. There is fact that some see benefit from the melting of the ice in the Arctic – the Northwest Passage would be realized – a potential new region of oil resources is opened for exploration – energy security. There are the highly publicized troubles of the polar bears and warming of the permafrost which impacts both ecosystems and the stability of existing roads and pipelines.

We have, here, the reality of warming and its impacts. From the point of view of economics, some could be viewed as losers, some as winners. This is the current incremental reality, and it will lead to development of adaptation strategies, lead to exposure of resilience of communities. Is it possible that rather than waiting for catastrophe, we can develop viable and extensible approaches that balance the conflicting pieces of our reality? Ideas?
ricky

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/archive/images/risa_akchart.jpg
Figure 1. From NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Reseach This figure shows temperature variability at a number of interior stations in the Alaskan forest.

[the happy prole]

See? How long until everyone recognizes my genius?

Twenty years from now when the messageboards are gone because our infrastructure has been irrevocably damaged by environmental causes and bad leadership, you'll all say "I never listened to that Happy prole guy. But hell if he wasn't right about thermal expansion. And Newt friggin' Gingrich. Damn, I hate that guy." :p

[justa bill]

See? How long until everyone recognizes my genius?

whatever prole. (whatever a prole is) i'm working on a great reply/mathematical proof countering all that nonsense. i've just been too busy to finish it. :p

'expanding oceans'... shaaa.

[DaHood]

whatever prole. (whatever a prole is)I've been wondering this for ages.

[the happy prole]

A prole is a member of the working class. Basically, it's short for proletariat. A prole is sort of the everyman.

"The Happy Prole" is a song by Quasi:

Everyday we earn our meager pay
But it takes its toll to play the happy prole
They buy your labor, try to steal your soul
Bite the bullet, hold your tongue and play the happy prole.

Paranoid and tired - quit before you're fired.
But they've got you in the hole, so you play the happy prole.

You need the money so you got to play it dumb,
but if you play it long enough it's just what you become.
Pay your rent, pay your bills, pay the doctor for your pills
So you can work another day, as life slips away.

[DaHood]

it's short for proletariat.
Well shit, why didn't you say so in the first place. I know what that is.

Oh and the rest is nice reference, thanks.

[Unrequited]

A prole is a member of the working class. Basically, it's short for proletariat. A prole is sort of the everyman.

Most people with a year or two of college know what it's short for. ;)