Global Cooling. The sky is falling.

[LesPalenik]

But none of that means much, Phil.  Sea ice does not contribute to a rise or lowering of sea levels.  It's floating.  When sea water freezes or melts, the sea's level remains the same.  It's melting glaciers on land that will raise sea levels just as increased snow on the Antarctic land mass will lower sea levels.

At the first look it seems so, Alan. However,  Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html

[Chairman Bill]

But none of that means much, Phil.  Sea ice does not contribute to a rise or lowering of sea levels.  It's floating.  When sea water freezes or melts, the sea's level remains the same.  It's melting glaciers on land that will raise sea levels just as increased snow on the Antarctic land mass will lower sea levels.

Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?

[LesPalenik]

Well, I did 90mph on a Connecticut highway with a speed limit of 65 and got tagged by the friendly state trooper for $300.  Just got back from the southwest touring the national parks.  Speed limits of 75 and 80mph are commonplace in Arizona, New Mexico and Utah unlike here in NJ.

Of course, it's not only the speed.  Americans like big cars like SUV's which suck up the fuel.  Ford and GM may be ending selling sedans in America favoring crossovers, a mix between a full size SUV and regular sedans.  But that could be also due to heavy competition from foreign models.

That's a shame, 90 mph doesn't seem so fast when you have thousands of miles to go. That reminds of my driving trip in 1976 from Toronto to the Southwest which I made with a friend in his Cadillac Eldorado. That was real gas guzzler, I think we got about 7-8 miles per gallon. OTH, the gas cost then about 55 cents per gallon.
Few years before that, I was driving in Europe on German Autobahn and through Swiss Alps mountain passes a much more economical red convertible Citroen 2CV with a 2 cylinder 421ccm 16HP engine. That car took me through half Europe, from the French Riviera all the way to the Polar Circle. However, the top speed was about 100 kilometres per hour, not miles.

[RSL]

Hi,

All you guys who are convinced that "climate change" (a term that took the place of "global warming" when it became clear the globe isn't warming) soon will bring a return of devastating eperic seas, might be interested in an article in the May 14th issue of The Weekly Standard by Kevin D. Williamson titled "The Scientistic Delusion" and subtitled "Lots of terrible political ideas come cloaked in a white lab coat."

Kevin begins with the demise of Freud as a "scientist," but goes on into several scary delusions foisted on the public by people who pose as scientists and produce fanciful, gaudy charts supposedly based on "research."

As he points out: "Freudian thought has gone from 'established science' to obvious poppycock in a remarkably short period 0of time. There ought to be a lesson in that for the American news media. But the American news media are remarkably resistant to learning."

And:

"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?

Then there's this quote: "Some systems are chaotic and hence their behavior is 'impossible, even in principle, to predict in the long term,' as computer scientist Melanie Mitchell puts it, 'The textbook examples of chaotic systems are markets and weather patterns..'"

There's a lot more. You guys who are the opposite of climate change "deniers" (otherwise known as "true believers") should enjoy that article.

[Peter McLennan]

https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_other_name.html

There are several good reasons why “Global Warming” has been supplanted by “Climate Change”.

[RSL]

In other words, Peter, "studies prove?"

[RSL]

Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?

Bill, maybe you missed this one I sent back to you: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Maybe the planet will flip over and the north pole will end up in Antarctica. You suppose?

[Chairman Bill]

Bill, maybe you missed this one I sent back to you: https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum

Maybe the planet will flip over and the north pole will end up in Antarctica. You suppose?

And the loss of Arctic sea-ice far outstrips any build-up in Antarctica, plus we've seen the calving of huge ice-shelves from the Antarctic, which will ultimately travel north & melt.

[RSL]

Well, it's probably the end of the world.

[Alan Klein]

At the first look it seems so, Alan. However,  Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.

https://nsidc.org/news/newsroom/20050801_floatingice.html

Les we're discussing apples and oranges here. The professor is talking about freshwater ice that slips off of land into the sea. Frozen sea water in the Arctic and Antarctic occurs when the Salty Sea freezes up. There is no rising or lowering of the sea level because the sea ice is already salty the same as the sea.

[Alan Klein]

Do you know what happens to sea ice that a) melts, or b) never gets created? Here's a clue - it adds to the total volume of seawater. Guess what that does to sea levels?

Sea ice does not contribute to a raising or lowering of the sea levels. Look up Archimedes principle.

[Alan Klein]

And the loss of Arctic sea-ice far outstrips any build-up in Antarctica, plus we've seen the calving of huge ice-shelves from the Antarctic, which will ultimately travel north & melt.

Ice shelbes have calbed for hundreds of thousands or maybe millions of years. The calves  are replaced by ice buildup from behind. This is an ongoing process that happens all the time. It's just that we're noticing it now because we have instrumentation and airplanes and ships that notice it. No one knew it was happening before. Or cared.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Sea ice does not contribute to a raising or lowering of the sea levels. Look up Archimedes principle.

In principle that's correct. However, once it has become a liquid it will expand (above 4 Degrees Celsius) due to increasing temperature.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. The cubic thermal expansion coefficient of water is: 2.573×10^-4 K^(-1) (reciprocal kelvins)

[Alan Klein]

In principle that's correct. However, once it has become a liquid it will expand (above 4 Degrees Celsius) due to increasing temperature.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. The cubic thermal expansion coefficient of water is: 2.573×10^-4 K^(-1) (reciprocal kelvins)

That has nothing to do with the original argument that melting sea ice is going to raise the level of the oceans. Because melting sea ice had frozen the year before. There's a constant cycle of freezing and melting,freezing and melting that goes on every year so over the long-term there is no effect on the level of the oceans.

[LesPalenik]

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).

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

That has nothing to do with the original argument that melting sea ice is going to raise the level of the oceans. Because melting sea ice had frozen the year before. There's a constant cycle of freezing and melting,freezing and melting that goes on every year so over the long-term there is no effect on the level of the oceans.

Unless there is more melting than freezing. The growth of the Antarctic sea ice surface (! not its thickness, so the volume is potentially still reducing) is way more than offset by the reduction of the total volume (= surface area x thickness) of the Arctic sea ice. Added to that is the meltwater coming from land ice, and glaciers more rapidly slide into the oceans with less sea-ice to slow them down.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/

And a lot more background material:
https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5#53

Cheers,
Bart

[Alan Goldhammer]

Well, the problem, Alan, is that Democrats don't resign. In spite of the shame they just keep plugging along, as in Bill Clinton.

Do you ever read the newspapers?  A number of Democratic politicians have resigned among them Franken, Conyers, and most recently Schneiderman.  There are others but why should I bother to do the research you should.  Why don't you think before you post so you don't appear so ignorant which I know you are not.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Kevin begins with the demise of Freud as a "scientist," but goes on into several scary delusions foisted on the public by people who pose as scientists and produce fanciful, gaudy charts supposedly based on "research."

As he points out: "Freudian thought has gone from 'established science' to obvious poppycock in a remarkably short period 0of time. There ought to be a lesson in that for the American news media. But the American news media are remarkably resistant to learning."

Freudian thought/science is subjective rather than objective and relies on the observer rather than data.  The same problem occurs in the development of pharmaceuticals to treat various mental conditions.  We do not have any laboratory tests/imaging that permit the direct analysis of whether the patient is getting better, rather we have to rely on the 'trained' observe for analysis.  We end up with lots of drugs that appear to work for some individuals but not others.  I've not read the Williamson piece but debates about this type of analytical science were far better led by the late Karl Popper who in his 'falsibility' approach did more to make people think about how studies ought to be constructed.

[Alan Klein]

Unless there is more melting than freezing. The growth of the Antarctic sea ice surface (! not its thickness, so the volume is potentially still reducing) is way more than offset by the reduction of the total volume (= surface area x thickness) of the Arctic sea ice. Added to that is the meltwater coming from land ice, and glaciers more rapidly slide into the oceans with less sea-ice to slow them down.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/sea-level-rise/

And a lot more background material:
https://www.nap.edu/read/13389/chapter/5#53

Cheers,
Bart

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. 

[LesPalenik]

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.