Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

Your argument would be valid only if the average temperature stays relatively stable. if the air and water temperatures increase over time, the water gets progressively warmer and will expand. Expand in summer, contract in winter, but if the warming trend will continue, the net effect will be warmer and bigger oceans. Add to it the plastic pollution which will add the volume and change the water composition, and you have a situation without any historic precedents.

Les, we can't lump everything together.  Plastic pollution is a problem; we shouldn't do it.  But let's not conflate it with global warming and sea levels.  I can't imagine that the amount of plastic dumped into the ocean really has much effect on rising sea levels.  Likewise, rising climate temperatures may expand sea water volume and raise sea levels to where it matters.  But sea ice is not part of that problem due to Archimedes.  It maybe a problem for polar bears.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

You keep throwing in strawmen arguments and should know better that sea ice has nothing to do with your strawmen.  Meltwater from glaciers or ice on land has nothing to do with sea ice, the subject in question.  Sea water, regardless of how much freezes each year or melts each year to create sea ice, does not contribute to the raising or lowering of sea levels.  It may reflect the warming or cooling of the climate or changing weather patterns, but doesn't change sea levels.  Even the sea ice that may have been there before for thousands of years has no effect when it melts due to Archimedes principal.

May I suggest you read up on the Thermal expansion characteristics of water?

Coldwater (meltwater) only expands a bit when it starts exceeding 4 degrees Celsius (where water is densest). When it mixes with warmer water and is warmed by the air above, it too will gradually warm up. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands per degree of temperature rise.

Volumetric Temperature Coefficients - for Water
    water at 0°C: -0.000050 (1/°C)
    water at 4°C: 0 (1/oC)
    water at 10°C: 0.000088 (1/°C)
    water at 20°C: 0.000207 (1/°C)
    water at 30°C: 0.000303 (1/°C)

Your argument that it follows the opposite path (shrinkage) during winter does not fly because the net volume of water that melts is larger than the volume that freezes. The Arctic region melts faster than it grows back elsewhere (in the antarctic or above land as snow/land-ice), so there will be a net increase of melted ice, i.e. water, and there is thus a net expansion of the water volume, which will thus expand when it warms, which will thus lead to rising water levels, as can be observed and measured.

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

It's always perilous to argue against the laws of physical chemistry!

[Alan Klein]

If ALL the sea ice around the world melted, something that would probably take hundreds if not thousands of years, if at all, the sea level would increase around 4cm or 1 1/2".  It's a non-problem.
https://academic.oup.com/gji/article/170/1/145/2019346

[Alan Klein]

May I suggest you read up on the Thermal expansion characteristics of water?

Coldwater (meltwater) only expands a bit when it starts exceeding 4 degrees Celsius (where water is densest). When it mixes with warmer water and is warmed by the air above, it too will gradually warm up. The warmer the water gets, the more it expands per degree of temperature rise.

Volumetric Temperature Coefficients - for Water
    water at 0°C: -0.000050 (1/°C)
    water at 4°C: 0 (1/oC)
    water at 10°C: 0.000088 (1/°C)
    water at 20°C: 0.000207 (1/°C)
    water at 30°C: 0.000303 (1/°C)

Your argument that it follows the opposite path (shrinkage) during winter does not fly because the net volume of water that melts is larger than the volume that freezes. The Arctic region melts faster than it grows back elsewhere (in the antarctic or above land as snow/land-ice), so there will be a net increase of melted ice, i.e. water, and there is thus a net expansion of the water volume, which will thus expand when it warms, which will thus lead to rising water levels, as can be observed and measured.

Cheers,
Bart

As my last post shows, total loss of sea will raise ocean levels 1 1/2 inches or 4cm, a non problem.  By flashing charts and formulas in trying to convince people of the catastrophe we are facing with sea ice melting, when there is no catastrophe, people like me question all your other claims as being hype.  It's false advertising and people don't like to get hoodwinked.   This is where global warming claimants have done a dis-service to your side by presenting over-reaching arguments.  You're creating denialists.  Stick to those areas where warming will make big changes.  Don't make mountains out of molehills.  People know when they're getting their pockets picked. 

[Chairman Bill]

If the West Antarctic ice sheet melted, sea level would rise almost 19 feet. If the Greenland ice sheet went, that would be an additional 24 feet. If the East Antarctic ice sheet melted, that would be another 170 feet rise. To save some from having to take their shoes off to help with the adding-up, that would be a total rise of 213 feet. Just saying.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

As my last post shows, total loss of sea will raise ocean levels 1 1/2 inches or 4cm, a non problem.

That paper seems to disregard Thermosteric effects, and mainly talks about Halosteric effects. The latter are not often talked about because of the relatively small effect the mixing of freshwater with saltwater has and that's because the freshwater is diluted a lot and basically doesn't change the salinity much. No revelation there.

I am still reading the paper you linked to, so maybe there is something else that they mention, but this is what I got from their introduction.

By flashing charts and formulas in trying to convince people of the catastrophe we are facing with sea ice melting, when there is no catastrophe, people like me question all your other claims as being hype.  It's false advertising and people don't like to get hoodwinked.   This is where global warming claimants have done a dis-service to your side by presenting over-reaching arguments.  You're creating denialists.  Stick to those areas where warming will make big changes.  Don't make mountains out of molehills.  People know when they're getting their pockets picked.

I'll try and avoid politics, which seems to work out badly for the national deficit, but fine for the upper 1%. Who's pockets are being picked one might ask, but I won't.

Cheers,
Bart

[RSL]

You guys are demonstrating what I wrote long ago in "A Common Cause":

"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.

Many who claim “scientific” methodology seem utterly uncritical about the premises upon which their methodology is based, and seem unable to distinguish between what can be quantified and what cannot. Most of what these people produce is garbage. Yet, it seems, our society has been taught to accept the results of any methodology provided it’s sufficiently complex and mysterious to hide the question of faith buried in its premises. Process itself has become our religion. Revelation and mathematics have become synonymous."

[Alan Goldhammer]

"The efficacy of any correct algorithmic process depends on two things: the validity of its premises and the validity of the data fed into it. The premises almost always are unprovable. They are arbitrary perceptions of reality arrived at through a mind leap that suspiciously resembles faith. The data need not only be accurate, they need to measure what the algorithm purports to deal with. Without valid premises and valid data a process may be quite valid and work perfectly well, but at the same time produce garbage.

Under this premise we pretty much should ignore weather forecasts.

[pegelli]

"If there is a two-word phrase that should be excised from American journalism, it is 'study proves.'" Wow! How often have I seen one or another variant of that meaningless phrase in this thread?

Russ, usually your trolling comments just make me laugh but for this one you had to pick me up from the floor. The amount of BS you post here to make your point is really very funny.

After having pulled myself together I did a quick search for the word "prove" in this thread and quickly saw you were the one who are using those words most in the climate change context (obviously I ignored when it returned an "improve" or "approve", and also ignored a discussion on the relation between dairy consumption and bone vitality, which has little to do with climate)

But when you use the word "prove" it's in my mind no more than your opinion. I have no problem with your opinion, but the way you keep proving it by just reiterating it without any facts I find amazingly funny, especially now you start accusing others of misusing what you call a "meaningless phrase". Just count yourself how often you have used it yourself and you'll be amazed how necessary it is to follow your own advice. 

[RSL]

Under this premise we pretty much should ignore weather forecasts.

I'd come close to endorsing that idea, Alan. When I was flying I didn't "ignore" weather forecasts, but I accepted them with a truckload of salt, and often found that the salt was correct and the forecasts way off base.

I told about the officers' club skit where the guy said that weather forecasts had improved 100% during his flying years. They used to be 2% accurate. Now they're 4% accurate. Things have improved since then with the help of satellites and more reliable radar, but last week, where I live, we went through three days of high rain probability without a drop of rain.

And these pretty much are the same folks who are sure they can predict climate conditions 50 or 100 years in the future. Sure they can.

[RSL]

Russ, usually your trolling comments just make me laugh but for this one you had to pick me up from the floor. The amount of BS you post here to make your point is really very funny.

After having pulled myself together I did a quick search for the word "prove" in this thread and quickly saw you were the one who are using those words most in the climate change context (obviously I ignored when it returned an "improve" or "approve", and also ignored a discussion on the relation between dairy consumption and bone vitality, which has little to do with climate)

But when you use the word "prove" it's in my mind no more than your opinion. I have no problem with your opinion, but the way you keep proving it by just reiterating it without any facts I find amazingly funny, especially now you start accusing others of misusing what you call a "meaningless phrase". Just count yourself how often you have used it yourself and you'll be amazed how necessary it is to follow your own advice.

Pieter, you're the one who's trying to prove that the "planet" is getting dangerously warmer. I don't have to "prove" a damned thing. All I have to do is sit back and laugh at the crap the global warmers come up with. Ehrlich should have been a warning to you all, but you have to be willing to look at the history of "scientific" predictions gone astray to understand that. I guess there's no time for that as long as you can make new predictions that'll turn out to be equally wrong.

[Chairman Bill]

No one needs to make predictions - the data shows the earth warming at an alarming rate. The magical thinking of climate change deniers might stop it happening, but it won't stop what has already happened.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Pieter, you're the one who's trying to prove that the "planet" is getting dangerously warmer.

Hi Russ,

There's no need to prove anything, just look at the records and where they are heading ..., not good.

It's the people who deny observable reality, that are the ones who ought to explain why they deny what's commonly accepted and supported by an overwhelming amount of scientific research and consensus. Perhaps even explain why they deny science as such while benefitting from its fruits of labor on a daily basis. But then we'd need to create a new thread on psychology instead ...

Cheers,
Bart

[Robert Roaldi]

Trump just cancelled the NASA program that tracks carbon and methane.
The White House has mounted a broad attack on climate science, repeatedly proposing cuts to NASA's earth science budget, including the CMS, and cancellations of climate missions such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 3 (OCO-3).

Scientific debates about the validity of climate models, sometimes contentious, is part of the development of a field of study. Political arguments about what to do about human-induced climate change is a complex topic of discussion, which our societies will be having for decades to come.

But to arbitrarily stop collecting data is a special kind of stupid. The USA used to be a beacon for much of the world. Sad to watch this happen.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The USA used to be a beacon for much of the world. Sad to watch this happen.

Indeed, it's becoming a warning beacon, to avoid and keep a safe distance from ...

Cheers
Bart

[RSL]

There's no need to prove anything, just look at the records and where they are heading ..., not good.

Cheers,
Bart

I'd edit that statement to say: "Look at where the records are coming from. . . not good."

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I'd edit that statement to say: "Look at where the records are coming from. . . not good."

Hi Russ,

Are you e.g. denying NOAA/NASA (USA institutes), and (despite your background) even the US Department of Defense that says that due to the melting of Arctic ice, they now have to patrol the NorthWest passage, due to "The Arctic is warming on average twice as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in increased human activity in the region." ?
and
"The harsh Arctic environment and polar icecap have long enhanced U.S. security by acting as a significant physical barrier to
access to the U.S. homeland from the north, but the changing climate is allowing greater access to the region."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Tab_A_Arctic_Report_Public.pdf

I am looking at where the records come from, are you?

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Klein]

Hi Russ,

Are you e.g. denying NOAA/NASA (USA institutes), and (despite your background) even the US Department of Defense that says that due to the melting of Arctic ice, they have to pay more attention to the NorthWest passage, due to "The Arctic is warming on average twice as fast as the rest of the planet, resulting in increased human activity in the region." ?
and
"The harsh Arctic environment and polar icecap have long enhanced U.S. security by acting as a significant physical barrier to
access to the U.S. homeland from the north, but the changing climate is allowing greater access to the region."
https://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Tab_A_Arctic_Report_Public.pdf

I am looking at where the records come from, are you?

Cheers,
Bart

That's one side of the equation.  My argument is that's all climate change advocates look at.  Only the negatives. 

How about the positives of additional areas for mineral exploration that will open if the ice cap shrinks and the ability for ships to pass through the Northwest Passage free of ice?  It's important that science, government and the media present us with all results of change not just those cherry picked to influence legislation and action toward favored outcomes by one group or another.  Otherwise we'll make uninformed and biased decisions and waste resources that might have been used more productively.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That's one side of the equation.  My argument is that's all climate change advocates look at.  Only the negatives. 

How about the positives of additional areas for mineral exploration that will open if the ice cap shrinks and the ability for ships to pass through the Northwest Passage free of ice?

Hi Allan,

Are you aware of the fact that Russian submarines have already planted their flag on the bottom of those "mineral exploration sites"? And that "ships to pass through the Northwest Passage", might be Russian? The DoD has.

Cheers,
Bart