Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Significant Rise to Oceans

HOUSTON 28 March 07(Reuters) - A Texas-sized piece of the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning, fast and could cause the world's oceans to rise significantly, Polar ice Experts said yesterday.

Hardly a week goes by before we hear about ice melting in the Artic or Antartica.
What is significant about this information is that this study focusses on the - 'Amundsen Sea Embayment' since it has been found to be melting quickly, and holds enough water to raise world sea levels six meters, or close to 20 feet, the scientists said yesterday.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUKN2834740720070329

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

As someone who lives on waterfront property just above the Tidal Zone all I can say is, "Well this sucks." Anybody interested in buying a little cabin on a Tropical Beach? Awesome Sunrises.
Years ago, as a kid, I remember reading a caption in the Walt Kelly Cartoon Strip "Pogo". It was later used for posters for Earth Day in 1970 if I'm not mistaken. The caption read, "We have met the enemy, and he is Us." Pogo was a sort of anthropomorphic Opposum, a wise soul. I was 18 years old at the time, a puke. I thought, "Hey, what's funny about that?" Well now I'm 54, and now I realize that it wasn't meant to be funny.
Somewhere along the line, we've lost our Morality.

Indeed
http://www.igopogo.com/we_have_met.htm

"Somewhere along the line, we've lost our Morality."

Indeed.

Its a wavy line, making islands smaller.
Theres another better take on rising oceans, put out by Kate
on our Front Page today "West Antarctic Ice Sheet Gets Climatologists Hot And Bothered"

--------------------
"You will never find a real Human being - even in a mirror." .....Mike Kremer.
.

The rate of sea level rise is actually not as rapid over the past 50 years as it was over the first half of the 20th century.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N4/C1.jsp

Sea levels change cyclically. It makes more sense to adapt to the changing tides than to try to stop them.

The rate of sea level rise is actually not as rapid over the past 50 years as it was over the first half of the 20th century.

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N4/C1.jsp

Sea levels change cyclically. It makes more sense to adapt to the changing tides than to try to stop them.

co2science.org?

Surely you jest. What happened to serious science?

You read doc T's posts and you realize - "Pogo" was right.

docT, RicS, JLowe, who's manufacturing these synaptic wastelands?

Carbon is being used as fuel

In that usage it is oxidized to CO2

The chemistry and physics of CO2 is non-negotiable

And they invest countless hours looking for ghosts, gnomes, sun spots, anything other than the dread taking of personal responsibility by the planet's inhabitants for the mess were are making.

Here's another piece of bad news:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.ph...s-arcticice.xml

Sun spots? Yeah sure.

If you don't like the message but can't come up with an appropriate, alternative arguement, then condemn the messenger.

It's quite apparent you don't want to conduct a serious, scientific discussion, but would rather try to intimidate your opponents with a self sanctimonious attitude.

The co2science site is run by respected researchers with many publications in the most respected scientific journals. They also critique the extant literature. My last citation thereof was of a summary written by others than those from that site.

The problem with GW Theory is that it is based on false pretenses, with poorly collected and analyzed data. Alternative explanations and exceptions abound. It's hard to argue with, say,the theory of evolution, quantum mechanics, etc etc, where no adequate alternatives exist. But GW Theory is weak at best and easy to point out discrepancies and fallacies. The whole affair of Mann and the hockey stick curve is a downright embarrassment to serious scientific endeavor, yet you continue to support the position due to a purely emotional attachment.

docT wrote:
"If you don't like the message but can't come up with an appropriate, alternative arguement, then condemn the messenger."

You should pay attention:
NOAA says you are wrong.
NASA says you are wrong.
CSIRO says you are wrong.
University of Washington says you are wrong.
Stanford University says you are wrong.
As do Oxford, Cambridge, MIT, Harvard, etc. etc. etc.

I needn't attack the message or the messager ... there is no substance.

Not to defend doc T, but I got the impression that he was only suggesting that variation in Solar intensity is a coincidental occurrence. Is he saying that it's the main reason we're seeing these effects, and that we shouldn't concern ourselves with emmissions? That's like Neville Chamberlain telling the British in 1939 not to be concerned about Hitler. By 1945, 50 million men, women and children from across five continents had died.
What is the matter with people? Aren't they paying attention?

He comes across as a pretty sharp guy, doc T didn't really say THAT did he?

Actually there are people from all those institutions who agree with me, too. The IPCC is the only organization that seems to completely force out dissenters.

Try reading these to see how politics and personalities play into the scientific process:

http://www.junkscience.com/news/jonker.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main....09/ixworld.html

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=1295

Thanks for the defense.

To summarize, I think the Milankovich cycles, solar cycles, thermohaline cycles and geophysical factors such as tectonic movements and volcanism all have a great deal to do with our planet's weather and climate. The exact composition of the atmosphere is a miniscule factor.

Most of the "average temp" data has not adequately taken into account Man's generation of heat with our engines and our effect on terrain with pavement and roofs (heat island effects). If you've ever sat in rush hour traffic in summer on a motorcycle, you know just what I mean.

Wolfman wrote:
"Not to defend doc T, but I got the impression that he was only suggesting that variation in Solar intensity is a coincidental occurrence."

That wasn't my impression. My impression is that he is just one more person trying to pretend, for reasons unknown, that the laws of chemistry and physics have broken down.

Of course the solar intensity varies. It does so in a wholly predictable 22 year cycle and has for a very long time. Global warming is not on a 22 year cycle. Case closed!

Perhaps a refresher course in trigonometry and Fourier analysis is in order for you. Adding together many sine and cosine waves of various periods and amplitudes gives a very complex graph. The Sun has at least three separate cycles, the ocean's thermohaline cycles, the planet's precession of axis and precession of orbit, it's elliptical shape, and even the precessing orbit of the galaxy have all been implicated as additive factors in Earth's climate cycles.

If you are able to close the case because you see only the Sun's 22 yr cycle, then perhaps we see why you are so adamant about GW. "Believe as the little children do" works well for religion, but not for science.

Let me dazzle you with my ability to quote irrelevances then too:
quaternion algebra, Z-scores, N-Tile, standard deviation, Chi-Square, ANOVA.

Perhaps you haven't paid enough attention to this forum to figure out I teach at a major research university, know how to use a research library, and am rarely dazzled by big words.

But just for you we will all stick our heads in the sand, make loud humming noises, and pretend that PhD climatologists are too stupid to consider using the correct methodologies and are not nearly as knowledgeable on the subject as you are.

BTW ... I seem to have missed you publishing your CV.

How are databases related to global warming? I suppose we need something to store all that climate data in.

I usually don't like to make any personal comments, so I apologize in advance, but I can't resist:

>>I teach at a major research university,..<<

Oh, couldn't find a real job, hunh? ;-)

In regards CV, I'm a semi-retired physician, formerly a clinical prof of med, did research in biochem & cardiophysiology as a student. I'm a hippy who never quite grew out of it, so disagreeing with the Establishment comes quite easily.

We're both aware of the competition for funds and personal jelousies that infect the world of scientific research, so we always must take into account the non-scientific factors that go into the current paradymes of thought.

As I've analyzed the GW evidence, I see too much conflicting evidence and outright falsehoods to acccept the popular position. Alternative theories are quite adequate at explaining the data, so I feel the jury is still out on the importance of CO2 as a factor. To change public policy in regards the use of fossil fuel at this time would have a huge impact on many socio-economic levels, and I believe is premature.

That's not to say conservation on the personal level is to be ignored or that increased efforts to develope alternative energy technology should be delayed. I think most people don't have any idea what a critical change in life style will be forced upon us as fossil fuels run out in the near future.

docT wrote:
"I'm a semi-retired physician"

Makes sense.

docT wrote:
"As I've analyzed the GW evidence, I see too much conflicting evidence"

Where? Certainly not at your local university research library. Where are you getting your "information?" Definitely not from peer reviewed journals.

Seriously. There are disagreements but not about substantive matters ... just about which models what best or how many years before we will be treading water.

If you are what you claim to be, someone with years of science schooling under your belt, it is time to think back to the accuracy of medical reporting in the lay-press and take a refresher course in research 101. Internship not required.

BTW: I was part of the team that put fluocinolone acetonide acetate into your hands. I hope you made good use of it.