Scientists scoff at AP global-warming story
posted at 11:55 am on December 17, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Remember that global-warming wet kiss from the AP to climate-change activists and Barack Obama earlier this week? Even scientists who believe in global warming couldn’t quite believe their eyes. They called the report by the Seth Borenstein a “polemic” and wondered when research stopped being a requirement for science reporters (via Q&O):
James O’Brien, an emeritus professor at Florida State University who studies climate variability and the oceans, said that global climate change is very important for the country and that Americans need to make sure they have the right answers for policy decisions. But he said he worries that scientists and policymakers are rushing to make changes based on bad science.
“Global climate change is occurring in many places in the world,” O’Brien said. “But everything that’s attributed to global warming, almost none of it is global warming.”
He took issue with the AP article’s assertion that melting Arctic ice will cause global sea levels to rise.
“When the Arctic Ocean ice melts, it never raises sea level because floating ice is floating ice, because it’s displacing water,” O’Brien said. “When the ice melts, sea level actually goes down. I call it a fourth grade science experiment. Take a glass, put some ice in it. Put water in it. Mark level where water is. Let it [melt]. After the ice melts, the sea level didn’t go up in your glass of water. It’s called the Archimedes Principle.”
And that comes from Borenstein’s ally on global warming. O’Brien calls hysteria on sea levels “major scare tactic,” the kind one would expect a science reporter to debunk rather than to perpetuate. He wants public policy on climate change to be informed rather than hysterical. The fact that water is less dense as a solid than as a liquid — which is why ice cubes float in your drink — never seems to occur to the AP’s “science” writer, who probably never heard of the Archimedes Principle before now. The only way melting ice would raise sea levels would be if water was more dense as a solid than a liquid, which if true would mean ice would get submerged below water than float on top of it.
Other scientists blasted the entire basis of Borenstein’s reporting as well as his ignorance of research:
“If the issues weren’t so serious and the ramifications so profound, I would have to laugh at it,” said David Deming, a geology professor at the University of Oklahoma who has been critical of media reporting on the climate change issue. …
“The mean global temperature, at least as measured by satellite, is now the same as it was in the year 1980. In the last couple of years sea level has stopped rising. Hurricane and cyclone activity in the northern hemisphere is at a 24-year low and sea ice globally is also the same as it was in 1980.” …
Michael R. Fox, a retired nuclear scientist and chemistry professor from the University of Idaho, is another academic who found serious flaws with the AP story’s approach to the issue.
“There’s very little that’s right about it,” Fox said. “And it’s really harmful to the United States because people like this Borenstein working for AP have an enormous impact on everyone, because AP sells their news service to a thousand news outlets.
Fox understands the problem, but undersells the scale. When the AP produces propaganda rather than reporting, it gets distributed to thousands of publications around the world. Unfortunately, the rebuttals don’t get that kind of distribution, and the lies and propaganda get accepted as truth.
Unfortunately, that’s been the history of the global-warming cult over the last decade. They accept no challenges, demonize those who question their science, scoff at contradictory data (such as the fact that temperatures have stopped rising), and insist on politicizing their science rather than work from facts. The AP has become the cult’s propaganda arm.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »
Look at what has happened in the finicial markets, politics and society in general. When I was young we did not lock our doors. It’s a shame.
Johan Klaus on December 18, 2008 at 1:02 AM
BallisticBob on December 18, 2008 at 1:00 AM
Funny huh? I just pop in every few minutes and either:
a) Say some little fact, like, “actually, there is no evidence that any scientists are maliciously manipulating data” or…
b) Pick out my favorite fallacy from someone responding to me–usually its them saying that I said something I didn’t…
And watch them go.
DaveS on December 18, 2008 at 1:10 AM
finicial, financial dummy.
Johan Klaus on December 18, 2008 at 1:11 AM
b) Pick out my favorite fallacy from someone responding to me–usually its them saying that I said something I didn’t…
And watch them go.
DaveS on December 18, 2008 at 1:10 AM
Pro lifer.
Johan Klaus on December 18, 2008 at 1:13 AM
Even better you state lie(s) about someone and then call them an idiot.
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 1:46 AM
Am Back, I can see he just doesn’t know how to communicate like an adult.
sheebe on December 18, 2008 at 1:56 AM
Not defending Global Warmism, but if global temperatures were to increase steadily, sea levels *would* rise because water above 4 degrees Centrigrade (just above freezing) expands (becomes less dense) when its temperature rises. The fact that water *also* expands when *cooled* 4 degrees Centrigrade is why ice floats on water is something of a quirk (albeit a very important one!).
In other words, thermal expansion of all the water in the oceans, not the melting of sea ice, is what accounts for most of the sea level rise associated with global warming. Melting of ice on land also contributes, but much less.
LagunaDave on December 18, 2008 at 5:14 AM
DISTRACTION OF THE MASSES–News occurs all the time.
But if it’s not reported, did an event even happen?
Sell a lie. Destroy American industry via legislated destruction of free enterprise. Mandate, cap, tax.
“In God We Trust” is imprinted upon our national currency; and traditionally “the almighty dollar” trumps all concepts with “bottom dollar” or “money talks”. Progressives appreciate propaganda and new-speak best. To focus the good intentions of neo-liberals, the radical and unscientific doctrine of warped ecology, aka Global Warming, aka Climate Change has become the global religion. (Even the Pope sings this populist tune that provides a contemporary equilibrium with strict canonic law.)
The cherry on top of this irony is the abuse of science by those claiming scientific basis. Empiricism has been usurped by revisionists, mutated into Imperial Dictate according to the college drop-out, POTUS loser and false profit al-Gore, globe salesman.
Everyone has an agenda; media outlets are no exception. To see the media in league with progressive politics is merely to have your eyes opened. Look out. MEDIA AND POLITICIANS HAVE CONVERTED OUR GOVERNMENT INTO THEIR PET UNDER THEIR CONTROL. Progressive Revisionism, aka Socialism, is a hungry bastard that destroys all firewalls to dominate every aspect of our existence. The masses were damned by Marx, the usurper and abusive betrayer. The radical ecological movement is not preventing but encouraging up and coming nations to deforest, pollute and destroy natural resources while literally starving the world’s weakest populations in the name of ecology. In 1938 the indigent were called food gobblers. Today, the producers of pseudo-clean less efficient fuel are the food gobblers, and they are laughing all the way to the bank that they own, the bank that they force us to bail-out for nothing in return beyond sorrow.
maverick muse on December 18, 2008 at 6:38 AM
but…Shep told me that Global Warming was now fact….the debate is over?
Idiot
conservnut on December 18, 2008 at 6:54 AM
Ran across this citation this morning.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:10 AM
Here’s an article on windfarms adversly affecting the local climate.
http://www.sciencecentric.com/news/article.php?q=08121716-answers-huge-wind-farm-problems-are-blowin-the-wind
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:13 AM
The increases measured are less than what would be predicted by taking the fossil fuels known to have been burned and converting the carbon in them to CO2.
The excess is thought to have gone into the oceans and into biomass. (CO2 makes plants grow better. NASA satellites show that the earth has been greening over the last few decades. It might have been longer, but sensors capable of measuring this kind of plant growth have only been up for a couple of decades.)
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:31 AM
I’ll grant you the point regarding Hansen, but Mann, and his Hockey Stick fiasco qualifies as deliberately falsifying the data.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:37 AM
Let me refine that a little. While I personally believe that Hansen is deliberately falsifying the data, the publicly available evidence is not sufficient to take to court yet.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:39 AM
The data that they adjusted downward was older data, from earlier in the last century.
The result of the adjustment was to make it look like the temperatures have been rising even faster. Adjusting current temperatures up, or old data down has the same affect.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:47 AM
If you truely believe that about the Hockey Stick, you should go to Climate Audit and ask about what they have uncovered.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:54 AM
DaveS,
If you believe that RealClimate is anything other than a propaganda site, then you haven’t gotten out much.
Yes, they do post links to scientific literature. But only to literature that agrees with their viewpoint, nor do they allow criticism of their selected science. I have talked with many prominent scientists who have been banned from the site because they argued against AGW to strongly.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 7:58 AM
From the reviews that I have read, most climate models have at least a dozen, some several dozen “adjustable variables”.
What you appear to be calling fudge factors.
Basically they make their best guess, then tune the variables until the model matches historical data closely enough to satisfy them. They they feed it their guesses about future CO2 and see what the answer is.
Adding to the list of things that GCMs don’t get right, they don’t get distribution of any factor (temperature, clouds, rain, etc) right. When you average the entire globe on the model output, and average the entire globe for real world data, the two averages come close. But for any given spot on the globe, the models are usually way off.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:07 AM
People at Climate Audit have tried to compile it. It can’t be done because he didn’t submit all of his code, just portions of it and none of his makefiles. Which if you know computer science, can be as important as the code itself if you are trying to verify the code’s accuracy.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:09 AM
I wouldn’t go that far. Models are usefull in helping you figure out what it is that you don’t know. But once you have found that out, you HAVE to go to the real world to do studies. Once you have filled in that gap in your knowledge, feed that to the model and repeat the process.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:11 AM
You are letting your ego get the better of you again.
I don’t know of a single engineering university that doesn’t have a computer science department. The engineering school that I went to had one of the best in the country. Your crack equating “engineering schools” with trade schools indicates that one you don’t know what you are talking about, and two your over confidence in your own training is misplaced.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:14 AM
No, it’s not a problem. 3/4ths of our oxygen come from the oceans.
When a forest is cut down, it is replaced with other plants, so the oxygen output from those acres does not go to zero. In some cases there is little change. (Remember, even though a forest may have a lot of biomass, the portion converting sunlight to oxygen is still just the upper layers, the parts that the sun is shining on.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:17 AM
I come back 12 hours later and we’re over 600 comments?
Wow.
600 comments of the alarmists being debunked at every turn using real science, anecdotal evidence and just plain common sense…
and the alarmists STILL think theirs is the only truth.
Again…wow!
catmman on December 18, 2008 at 8:18 AM
Just left MSN where they have an article about myths of global warming. http://green.msn.com/Home/Global-Warming-Mythbusters/?gt1=45002
First “myth” they “bust” is that global warming is not a fact. They conclude that it is indeed a fact, that it is manmade and there is complete consensus on it. Then I look down further and find that the source is the Environmental Defense Fund! Those dangerous looneys are the same ones that falsely accused the chemical Ally of poisoning apples, sent Merrill Streep to Congress and cost the apple growers millions. And yet they still have credibility????? If the MSM would do its job, these people would be exposed as wackos, not quoted as truth!
Christian Conservative on December 18, 2008 at 8:21 AM
Dave,
If you believe that GCM’s are based on first principles, then you haven’t been keeping up with GCM’s.
It might be possible to write a GCM that is based on first principles, but such a model would take several thousand years to make it’s first forecast.
What they do instead is divide the atmosphere (only the newest models also try to tackle the oceans) into blocks. They then make assumptions about the physical processes going on inside those blocks. I remember one experiment where the only thing changed between runs was the size of the blocks. The results were radically different.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:24 AM
I disagree. He’s not a moron, he’s an arrogant twit who doesn’t know the limits of his own knowledge. In other words, he’s a typical liberal arts college prof.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:34 AM
Alar
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:41 AM
Sorry about all the posts in a row, but there had been some two hundred new posts since the last time I visited.
GOing to have to learn to do without sleep.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 8:42 AM
but…Shep
told me that Global Warming was now fact….the debate is over?…..IdiotFIFY
t on December 18, 2008 at 9:05 AM
They are doing their job and doing it quite well in my opinion. Of course what you think their job should be is far different then what they see their job to be. I would venture that you think that at the very least they should inform and they think they are agents of change that must guide the people to the proper world view. They did a great job with getting BO elected and now they just have to push a little harder and they will make GW politically true.
jmarcure on December 18, 2008 at 9:10 AM
That is probably the only thing Climate Models are good for but for a lot less money I could just tell them this.
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM
All these, how do you call them, facts, are just so confusing. I’d rather believe what pulp media crams down my throat.
sarc off*
Mojave Mark on December 18, 2008 at 9:17 AM
Without models, you knew that they didn’t have a firm grasp on how clouds form?
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:18 AM
I think even they knew that without models.
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Again, I work directly in the scientific weather field (I’m an EE by degree, and network and system engy by experience/trade). I work with several meteorologists and weather experts, and we ingest and disseminate weather data from across the CONUS, Hawaii and AK 24/7/52. So, on with the point…
Here’s a tidbit for you, regardless of the earth-collected data, we have neither sufficient data points from today, nor sufficient historical data points. And, data that has been collected is oftentimes inconclusive about the actual cause (see Mt. Kilimanjaro, glacier disappearing due to warming or deforestation?).
Having said that, temperature data from satellites is a good start, but satellites are incapable of measuring such noteworthy data as precipitation, wind speed, or salinity. In addition, climatologists/scientists have no real idea of how such factors affect the world’s system(s).
Basically, I don’t care what scientific findings have been about ice melting, that doesn’t answer the question of cause nor does it address what methods the system has for normalizing temperatures.
1. Global Warming? – Maybe, what is the time frame and the median? Is this a long term trend or just a normal cycle?
2. Mankind caused GW? – Perhaps, inconclusive at this point. Insufficient data, mankind does not understand enough about the system to determine. If you think CO2 concentration is the only factor in how the system fluctuates or even the primary factor, you are sadly mistaken.
3. What are the ramifications of warming if so? Is the earth incapable of counteracting the warming effects of increased CO2 emissions (if that is even a factor)? Will the warming trend continue unabated indefinitely?
As stated previously by others, anytime a “consensus” is reached, that means nothing. Science cares not one wit whether scientists agree on something or not (examples are too numerous to even list). Mathematically, as we understand physics presently, we can explain a large portion of our universe and how it operates and there is a consensus on that. However, we are missing the unifying theory between the very large and the very small, and thus we know we don’t have the complete story or answer. Global warming (I won’t use “climate change” because that is an open ended term, I could just as easily say that number of women in the world suffering menopause determines whether we are having a warming or cooling trend) doesn’t even have the benefit of a mathematical model/evidence to recreate and prove their theories, its ALL conjecture.
I also have a general rule I live by, if an idiot like Al Gore or some Hollywood starlet thinks its fact and has to try and convince us of its legitimacy, then I know its wrong. Its kind of like that episode of Seinfeld where George figures out that if all of his decisions are “wrong”, then doing the opposite should always be “right”.
.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM
Without models, it’s very difficult, sometimes impossible to test your theories.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:53 AM
And, creating a model without understanding the system will make the model worthless anyway.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 9:55 AM
The head of the IPCC stated the other day that he didn’t care if a few papers came out disproving AGW, since there were so many papers that supported it.
On the other hand, Einstein said that it would only take a single paper finding a flaw with his theory to disprove it.
Science has gone down hill tremendously since Einstein.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:57 AM
It makes it worthless for predicting.
It does not make it worthless for helping you to understand the system that you are studying.
Only when your understanding of a system is getting pretty darn close to perfect. And only when your computing power is sufficiently high so that you are able to run your model with small enough granularity. Then you can start making predictions.
I have no idea when the first requirement will be met (it’s far from being met today). And we are decades away from the second.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 9:59 AM
Well I know what causes GW; lack of pirates.
Chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FSM_Pirates.png
Now there is also some evidence that it may be getting cooler. Why?
Has not the incidents of piracy increased?
There you have it. The less piracy on the seas the warmer it gets and the current increase in piracy is starting to drive temperatures down.
Very simple really and most likly as accurate as any other method being used by the AGW cult.
Disclaimer:
Like a great many of the global warming advocates I am not a scientist, have no background in climatology or know anyone that does but like them I am trying to open your eyes to the truth
jmarcure on December 18, 2008 at 10:03 AM
maverick muse on December 18, 2008 at 6:38 AM
Very nice post.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
There, fixed it for you. Actually, its the implementation of the scientific method. It used to be that you gathered/measured empirical data, made observations and then tested a hypothesis by demonstrating the ability to replicate your findings. Now, its gather financial backing, give the expected observations, and restrict others from refuting your findings through ridicule, financial (employment) and political pressure.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 10:04 AM
Maybe I was too broad there. Worthless for predicting. However, the model will still perform poorly if the underlying equations are wrong. I can design a neural network to predict my wife’s mood today, but without a complete understanding of women (or my wife in specific) and the events or factors that occur effecting her mood, then my model doesn’t really help me understand the wife at all. Observing my model helps me to determine that the model is “wrong” but it doesn’t *necessarily* help me in knowing how to fix it.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 10:15 AM
I am terrified. Al Gore must be stopped. CO2 triggers the breathing reflex in humans. Lower CO2 levels will induce reflexive suffocation. We won’t breath and will die. Ergo, we must continue to burn more fossil fuels as the planet’s population rises. Please stop
manbearpigAl Gore from suffocating me./sarc off
riverrat10k on December 18, 2008 at 10:19 AM
lmao
riverrat10k on December 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM
The global warming issue and the financial collapse debacle have one very important attribute in common. they are/were both presented as “act now before it is too late” problems.
No time for sorting things out, studying, evaluating evidence to determine what is fact or myth, just act NOW on orders from only a few “experts” who supposedly have no political agenda.
If our society reached these crisis stages without the so-called expert’s realization (until it was too late), why should we trust them to tell us the correct path to take to avoid disaster? I smell a rat!
Global warming and financial meltdown are the spring boards to global totalitarianism/ end of democracy.
Can anyone envision a scenario where it WILL NOT lead to that?
Goodeye_Closed on December 18, 2008 at 10:26 AM
e-pirate,
Here’s a better take on your analogy.
A doctor with a history of making faulty diagnosis, using an MRI that has never been certified as being capable of detecting brain tumors, tells you that you have a brain tumor.
The surgery is not covered by your insurance and is going to cost you hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There is no guarentee that the surgery will get all of the brain tumur, meaning it could grow back and kill you anyway.
The surgery will most definitely leave you permanently paralyzed.
Now you tell me. Are you going to get a second opinion or not?
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 10:29 AM
I don’t remember the exact level, but somewhere between 100ppm and 200ppm, and plants stop being able to synthesize O2 from CO2 and sunlight.
Given that the “normal” level for CO2 in the atmosphere has been closer to 1000ppm, we are dangerously close to the level at which plants begin to die.
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Please note that the strongest advocacy to do something about, GW, CC, or whatever you want to call it is from POLITICIANS AND POLITICAL ENTITIES. Consider the source my friends. Follow the money. Scientists are doing their thing and arguing about the data and it’s veracity, as well they should. When you inject POLITICS AND POLITICIANS into the discussion, by definition, you get skewed results.
Fully understanding how our climate works may beyond our abilities, due to our limited lifespans. Only a few of us on this planet have an inkling of understanding of what has happened or will happen outside of our experiential lifetime.
Can anyone really conceive of and properly evaluate processes that occur over hundreds, thousands, or millions of years, when our lifespan is less than one hundred?
riverrat10k on December 18, 2008 at 10:31 AM
I am SO doing that ice cube trick for a mini-lab with my students next term when we do atmosphere and climate.
Oh YEAH.
/wondering why the heck I didn’t think of it?!
Bob's Kid on December 18, 2008 at 10:34 AM
Keep in mind that only an immature, growing forest produces a net amount of O2. Mature forests use as much as they produce.
This has the interesting consequence that one should engage in logging if one wants to increase O2 production (or decrease C02 levels).
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 10:37 AM
Make sure you cover the glass. Evaporation and condensation may become an issue, depending on how long it takes the ice to melt. Also, there may be some shrinkage in the water if the ice cools it significantly.
Count to 10 on December 18, 2008 at 10:39 AM
They are not springboards they are linchpins in the plan. Why is it that we can only solve GW by political means? Why is it that the only solutions are a reduction in population, lowering of living standards and removal of freedoms? Why is it that only the destruction of the USA will solve all the worlds’ problems?
jmarcure on December 18, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Come on, folks! The debate is over. Man made global warming is a fact – they voted on it and reached a consensus….
sarc
Vashta.Nerada on December 18, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Geministorm, you’re correct to characterize the state of climate modeling as not being exact, but you’re making a mistake yourself by implicitly assuming the error goes only one way against the probability that human forcing of the climate is occurring. I’m not a climatologist myself, but the models they use are now are based on a good enough understanding of the factors that drive the Earth’s climate to be useful in making decision about what we can do about the changes we’re seeing. Including the following change just being reported today by the American Geophysical Union:
The worrisome thing is that this rate of melt is greater than has been predicted by the IPCC’s climate models. So as I said, we can’t be sure that climatologist’s models aren’t underestimating the rate of warming.
starfleet_dude on December 18, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I don’t understand all this talk about CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, its what we exhale and its what plants “breath.” CO2 is a vital and necessary gas in the air to sustain life on Earth. CO2 is the “fizz” in your Coca Cola and Pepsi and is called dry ice when frozen. Not only is CO2 not harmful, its beneficial to the planet.
The only reason Al Gore and his global warming hucksters go after CO2 is because its the perfect target of a tax. You literally cannot live without making CO2. If you breath, you make CO2, its that simple. Making CO2 is part of the life cycle on Earth, if there was no CO2 in the air, plants would die and soon there would be no oxygen in the air.
CO2 does NOT contribute to warming. Now as soon as I say that some nut is going to jump up and say…. OH YES IT DOES, IT ABSORBS HEAT FROM THE SUN. Well that’s true, but so do all gases and both Oxygen and Nitrogen absore more heat from the sun than CO2 on a molecule by molecule basis. Combine that fact with the fact that CO2 is only about .037 percent of the air and you can see that for all practacle purporses C02 DOES NOT CONTRIBUTE TO WARMING!!!
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 11:08 AM
You can’t tell if they are malicious or just incompetent. Proof would require mind reading.
I thought the climate models were perfect. /sarc
zmdavid on December 18, 2008 at 11:13 AM
We are absolutely sure that the models have grossly overestimated an exaggerated the amount of warming because the earth’s temperature has not skyrocketed like the models have predicted and in fact have been declining since 1998.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 11:19 AM
…and in other news today…it snowed in Las Vegas.
selias on December 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM
[[the earth’s temperature has not skyrocketed like the models have predicted and in fact have been declining since 1998.Maxx]]
[[The worrisome thing is that this rate of melt is greater than has been predicted by the IPCC’s climate models.
starfleet_dude]]]
This is interesting. I have read both of the statements above previously in GW articles.
My question: Is it possible that rapid ice melting is occuring AND global temps are not rising the way some thought?…Hmmm
Maybe there is something causing a large portion of the world’s ice to melt other than widespread global warming.
Goodeye_Closed on December 18, 2008 at 11:58 AM
One word, communism.
Johan Klaus on December 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM
The same thing happened in the 1930′s. The Arctic ice virtually disappeared during the summer. Take the time to investigate and not rely on hysteria.
You’re also making the assumption that ice must be static and never changing … that’s absurd.
darwin on December 18, 2008 at 12:10 PM
Yes it is, the oceans are indeed getting warmer due to extraordinary volcanic activity on the oceans floor over the last decade. Here is one article on the topic, there is a website devoted to tracking the activity but I’ve lost the link. Here is another article.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 12:11 PM
Ah, here is the site that tracks underwater volcanic activity. It’s up-to-date as of 8 December 2008. Here is another good article on the topic with many links.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 12:30 PM
So, greenhouse is all about carbon dioxide, right?
Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.
In simple terms the bulk of Earth’s greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect — perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth’s total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, “Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,” Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).
The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other “minor greenhouse gases.” As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.
Important distinction:
Because the greenhouse effect and its players vary with altitude and latitude there is often confusion over differing statements regarding the greenhouse potential of constituent gases.
Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere (the portion of the atmosphere of most interest — it is the region from the surface to basically the top of the active weather zone) is around 5% from carbon dioxide and around 95% from water vapor.
However, in the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80% from carbon dioxide and about 20% from water vapor, although this makes a relatively small contribution to total greenhouse effect.
Naturally, calculations for the total atmosphere yield different results yet again, as does consideration of latitude and season but the net effect in which we are interested is that which can realistically be expected to have significant effect on life at the surface, thus average tropospheric greenhouse at 95:5% water to carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.
The net total atmosphere greenhouse effect then is about 90% water (as vapor and cloud droplets) and 10% carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases.
Remember that atmospheric properties in the Polar winter are tremendously different from the tropics, say during the monsoon rain season. Thus people may be correct citing widely varying greenhouse figures, always providing they are specific about the where and when.
BobMbx on December 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM
One more point. While air does not have enough density to substantially warm the oceans the reverse is not true. Warm oceans can and do warm the air above them. If the ocean is warming in a particular area due to underwater volcanic activity then the air in that location is going to become somewhat warmer which would account for melting of land ice.
It has nothing to do with CO2 and man is not causing the volcanoes to erupt. So don’t let Al Gore and the global warming huckster pull the wool over your eyes. The Earth’s global temperature is well within the normal/historical range. There is no man-made global warming and CO2 is our friend, the more CO2 there is in the air the faster plants and crops grow to feed a hungry world. Ice core samples show that the Earth has had ten to twenty times more CO2 in the atmosphere than today.
If the Earth was going to overheat due to too much CO2 in the air, surely it would have already happened. Relax, the climate is just fine, in fact historically we are experiencing a long period of wonderful weather at present, as compared to times past. Too bad the alarmist liberals won’t allow us to enjoy it.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Umm false. It steams but doesn’t make the air warmer depending on the areas of the Volcanic rise. Underwater (oceans) is does not boil the water.. and rarely do you ever see much vapor if at all on the surface of the water.
Please link these facts you are speaking of.
upinak on December 18, 2008 at 1:43 PM
You misunderstand me. Analogy: I’ll state that due to a burp I just had, the wind velocity in Topeka, KS tomorrow will increase by 2mph.
You see, the observed result may indeed by >2mph or <2mph, but we could probably both agree that it is unlikely that my burp had any effect on the wind several hundred miles away. Likewise, a meteorologist may tell you that due observed atmospheric conditions, humidity and type of cloud formation, tomorrow’s temperature will be 85F. It could be 87, or it could be 83, there is room for error.
What I’m saying is that scientists do *NOT* understand enough about the systems involved, and their interactions to be able to make an accurate prediction. While their prediction could become true, it isn’t because their model or data led to that conclusion, its because their guess was close…
Again, I’ll state this;
1. Is there a global warming trend? – Possibly, there have been alternative views, and measuring such a trend would depend on a number factors, but for the sake of argument, I’ll agree that it is a warming trend.
2. Is the above warming trend caused by mankind’s emissions of CO2? – Inconclusive. We do not yet know enough about the systems nor do we have enough information in order to make such a determination.
3. Is the warming trend irreversible? – I would suggest not, the earth has responded to past trends and typically normalizes the mean temperature over time. We’ve had warmer weather in the past (1934 apparently) and colder weather, and the earth seems to be able to normalize the temperature quite readily. It is highly unlikely that the warming trend would continue unabated due to man’s intervention because of the systems reaction to climate changes in past (as evidence).
If more artic ice is melted and enters the oceans, the salinity levels of the oceans change. With a change in salinity, you will see variances in the rate or amount of rainfall/evaporation, cloud cover, current volume, heat retention, albedo (radiation reflectivity), etc. And that is just one effect of the ice melting. Do you suppose that the climatologists can accurately determine what the effect will be of such an event? Can climatologists agree about the cause of a greater or lesser frequency of hurricanes?
In other words, climatologists are making guesses, and evidence of past results have shown that their methodologies are so thoroughly inadequate that we can determine one thing for sure, climatologists cannot accurately predict the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere, let alone if the earth is in a global warming trend caused by human CO2 emissions.
BTW, I believe that fresh water ice floating in salt water does not displace as much as an equal volume of salt water ice since it is not as dense. So, when the fresh water melts it will occupy more volume as a liquid than its salt ice twin. As an experiment, take two glasses of water. Add salt to one and place 4 fresh water ice cubes in each. After the ice melts, measure the water levels. Meaning, that in a closed system, a fresh water ice berg/shelf/whatever will cause a rise in sea level when it melts.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 1:49 PM
I sure wouldn’t know where to find a link for that. Now think about it for a minute. When air comes in contact with anything warm… the air gets warmer.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Actually underwater volcanoes to boil the water and sometimes you can see it at the surface, see this picture.
Not that it has to boil in order to transfer heat to the air. In order for the ocean to transfer heat to the air, the only requirement is that the water is warmer than the air. That is basic heat transfer, heat is always spreading out and into whatever can conduct it.
I’m sure you have heard of “warm ocean breezes” that is a common reference to the air being heated by the ocean. Technically it would be called heat conduction/convection.
Think of your car radiator. Water runs through the engine and heat is transfered to the water. Then the water gets to the radiator and heats the copper tubes and metal fins. Then those surfaces transfer the heat to the air that is pushed through the radiator by the fan or by the movement of the car through air as you drive. The water can transfer heat to the air “directly” too, without the radiator, but not as efficiently.
Same is true with a boiler heating system. The boiler heats water which is pumped to radiators. The air contacts the surface of the metal radiator and becomes warmer, thereby heating your home. The metal surface is not necessary for transfer, but is necessary to contain the water and keep it from flooding your floor.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 2:26 PM
Are you sure about that?
Check your chemical compounds before making that assuption.
upinak on December 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Not to beat this to death, but if you have ever taken a hot shower in a cold bathroom you will note that the bathroom gets warmer after you let the warm water sprinkle into the air for awhile. Trust me my friend, water can and does heat air.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM
Maxx.. you can think what you like. But ever been near a Volcano when it is erupting?
Steam is a great conductor of heat.. but Sulfuric Acid is not. So when you have a Steamer (as Volcanologists call them) it can effect the tempurature, depending on how high the plume goes as well as what time frame it happens (i.e. seasons). If it has enough Sulfuric acid in that cloud, it will stay warm close to the mouth of the eruption, but as soon as it moves out.. it makes everything around become 10 to 20 degrees colder then the surrounding areas.
Interesting huh. Yeah.. I have had over 6 Volcanic Eruptions around my area… just something to ponder. Also, do not forget the ash in the air that makes it coulder as well.
Have a nice day!
upinak on December 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
upinak on December 18, 2008 at 2:38 PM
You have a nice day too… and Merry Christmas !!
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Salt water ice?
BobMbx on December 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM
That’s correct. Something is “cold” when it has less thermal energy than it’s surrounding environment. Also, thermal energy travels from “hot” to “cold”, not “cold” to “hot”.
BobMbx on December 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Yes, although that is perhaps too literal. When sea/ocean water freezes, the H20 molecules do not completely separate from the sodium chloride, so that if you remelted the ice soon afterward, it would still be “salty”. After a great deal of time (depending on the mass), the sodium chloride is “pushed away” (I don’t have a better term off the top of my head) by the molecule formation and attachment to nearby water molecules.
Really, all that matters from the post is that ice that melts into salt water will affect the water level more than ice melted in fresh water because the ice displaces less of the salt water, but the melted form (liquid) effects the volume equally…does that make sense?
Again, do the experiment I mentioned above and it should become apparent.
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 3:25 PM
And on top of all of that, the current (last 1/4 century or so of temperature data collection has been getting more and more inaccurate due to UHI effect, construction, poorly placed intrumentation, disparate instrumentation type, etc…Most of these realities skew the readings toward the hotter. So the data from the same station is non-comparable to data from 10,25,50 years ago. If you need evidence visit surfacestations.org
And MarkTG is doing a fine job of rebuffing the AGW clerics. From one engineer to another, I tip my hat sir.
MechEng5by5 on December 18, 2008 at 3:39 PM
Oh, and the difference is probably barely noticeable on a micro scale, but if the difference in density of common sea water and fresh water is about 2.5%, then that is approximately how much of a level change you should see between the level with floating ice (displacement) and liquid.
Example: 400e3 m^3 of ice melting into sea water will displace as if 10e3 m^3 of sea water were added. However, spread over the entire volume of the ocean (1.32e18 m^3) is too small to notice (1/132 trillionths).
Note: If we state that the artic and glacial ice make up about 30e15 m^3, and it all melted, spreading it out over about 400e12 m^2, that would have an effect of raising the sea level 75m, but that would be assuming ALL of the ice was on land above sea level, which we know isn’t true. Anyone ever see Kevin Costner’s horrible Waterworld? Yeah, well that couldn’t happen. The mean elevation of the land currently above sea level is about 850m, meaning that the majority of current land would still be above the sea level if all of the ice in the world melted….
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 3:51 PM
I find it amazing that when Climatologists like Reid Bryson or Environmental Engineers like Bennett Mayberry, called global warming a hoax, both received thousands of death threats, had bombs placed under their vehicles, etc. Both men are dead now, so you leftist lunatics that spew your global warming fraud can stop trying to kill them and crawl back into the little holes you came from.
nelsonknows on December 18, 2008 at 4:21 PM
This is what the global warming sham is all about… getting people to go along. They use bribery, deception and when need be, thuggery. The so called “science” of man-made global warming is laughable at best, but the above is why more knowledgeable people don’t speak out. Al Gore and those paying him should be arrested for this gargantuan fraud and for propagandizing our children and making them political pawns in their game of greed.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 4:34 PM
This is not the best chart I’ve ever seen, big problem is that it’s not in ppm, but it does show the ratio of CO2 today to historical periods.
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/2042/4353/4/CG2005_M02_Abstract02.pdf
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 4:37 PM
Should have been more patient, here is a much better chart.
It shows both temperatures and CO2 levels in ancient times.
Note how poorly CO2 and temperature track each other.
Note especially the drop in temperature that occurred around 440MYA, even though CO2 was more than 10 times current levels.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-08-18/dioxide.htm
MarkTheGreat on December 18, 2008 at 4:44 PM
Mark,
Debunking the Goracle is blasphemous at best, and treason at worst. You’d best learn to go along, to get along.
Mother Earth is watching…
Geministorm on December 18, 2008 at 4:59 PM
Well put maxx and thank you. Bennett Mayberry was Chief of Environmental Engineering for NORAD for several years and a close friend.
nelsonknows on December 18, 2008 at 5:05 PM
No they are not. There is no such thing as good enough with computer systems, there is only right and wrong and the models are wrong. Is 1+1=1.5 good enough or wrong? It is that simple.
FACT: Only Computer Illiterates believe in “Man-Made” Global Warming
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 8:38 PM
Total propaganda, the models continue to be wrong and have proven to OVER-estimate the rate of warming:
Antarctic Temperatures Disagree With Climate Model Predictions (Science Daily)
Climate Models Overheat Antarctica, New Study Finds (Science Daily)
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 8:46 PM
I notice Ed and the other global warming deniers here seem to think that scientific disciplines are akin to Jenga. Reporters tend towards sensationalism and somehow that invalidates global warming. Climate science has many lines of evidence pointing towards existence of this phenomenon from satellite data to ground and ocean based temperature readings to historical data to coral reef sampling to ice sampling…you may begin to understand why your throw rocks at the windows of science approach does little to sway those who have any understanding how science works. Shouting “little ice age” and “computer model shmomputer model” won’t do it. You think climatologists don’t realize the limitations of their own research? This is why multiple lines of research are used.
The disagreements in the field have been resolved over the last fifty years. We conservatives and libertarians need to oppose regulation with good, principled arguments about how it will harm the economy and personal freedom and have countless other unintended consequences. Denialism and a priori skepticism is not the answer.
starflyer on December 18, 2008 at 9:16 PM
No, its not “reporters” that invalidates global warming, its that the globe is not warming, that invalidates global warming.
Wow, it sounds like they got everything they need then to prove global warming…. except for the global warming.
Nor is spending billions of hard earned tax dollars for an non-existent problem the answer. In fact, I’m convinced if we were to simply cut all the funding for “global warming research” we would stop all the alarmism about global warming and the planet would be just fine.
Maxx on December 18, 2008 at 9:27 PM
Wow. Still going. :O
Venusian Visitor on December 18, 2008 at 9:47 PM
That’s interesting because Trenberth recently said the science is still in its infancy and there is still a lot that needs to be figured out. Do you disagree with Trenberth?
Trenberth can’t find the missing heat that is supposed to be present according to their models and all of Hansen’s lunatic theories that you gorebots have been relying on. Trenberth even suggested that the missing joules may have leaked into outer space, but if that’s the case, the greenhouse theory is garbage or it at least introduces a new factor that isn’t present in the models.
Buddahpundit on December 18, 2008 at 9:51 PM
You disqualify your statements by starting off like this.
Global Warming Ad Hominem Attacks Show Alarmist Believers’ Desperation (The Heartland Institute)
Really? Satellite, ground and ocean based temperature measurements proves man-made CO2 is the cause? Yet the only “evidence” they have for man-made CO2 is worthless climate models.
Ocean and Land based temperatures show something else.
Poptech on December 18, 2008 at 10:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 Next »