Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

I was not talking about the recycling that happens with rainfall filling lakes and people using it and returning it to the sea. That would come under the broad umbrella of runoff. I am pointing out the addition of the melinial ground water which until we draw it out it is not in the day to day cycles of water.

Don't many (if not all) underground aquifers get replenished to some extent by surface water percolating down into them? And doesn't some of the water that's extracted by humans for agriculture find it's way back into that same aquifer over time? So I guess it's when the rate of human extraction exceeds the rate of replenishment that there would be a net increase in the amount of water finding it's way to the sea. But then some of that returns to water vapor and winds up as surface water again through rain & snow, and the cycle starts anew. Given the time scale of the replenishment, it could be that the flooding we're seeing now from the El Nino won't reach some of the aquifers for centuries. (Got that time frame from having my own well water periodically tested, and the tech guy claiming that the water I'm using now is probably 100 years old). Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but this process doesn't seem as finite as, say, extracting fossil fuels out of the ground.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

From what I gather from the literature, sea level is a complex thing to try & measure. There are also significant factors other than melting sea ice, such as the constant rising & falling of the land (presumably that which lies under the oceans & that which surrounds), and thermal expansion of water. Accordingly, there's a margin of error that doesn't seem to have yet been definitively surpassed. So like climate change, sea level is never constant. And also like CC, it might also be fair for some to claim that humans are having some impact. But the real issue is whether the human impact is exceeding those significant and constantly variable natural forces.

Instead, I think the alarmism may primarily be coming from assumptions about future sea ice loss. But whether that is occurring in a sufficent amount to impact sea level, and the even tougher question of whether human influence is making a significent difference, remains as unsettled science as Reefmagnet's & other's links show.

Sea ice has no effect on sea level whatsoever. The melt water has to flow into the ocean off terrestrial ice sheets. The IPCC reports Antarctic ice sheet melt is adding around 0.27 mm annually to sea level rise as present (which is one reason that Dr Zwally is being crucified for his paper - he's opposing published IPCC data). To calculate how long the IPCC thinks it would take to melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet as a result of this "catastrophic" AGW, just divide the 60 m sea level rise that would result from loss of the Antarctic ice sheets by that 0.27 mm number.

Another Antarctic factoid is that the weight of ice sitting over the Antarctic continent has pushed the ground down an estimated 1000 metres. The land would progressively rebound as the ice sheets thinned. Solid rock isn't as solid as we tend to think it is.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't many (if not all) underground aquifers get replenished to some extent by surface water percolating down into them? And doesn't some of the water that's extracted by humans for agriculture find it's way back into that same aquifer over time? So I guess it's when the rate of human extraction exceeds the rate of replenishment that there would be a net increase in the amount of water finding it's way to the sea. But then some of that returns to water vapor and winds up as surface water again through rain & snow, and the cycle starts anew. Given the time scale of the replenishment, it could be that the flooding we're seeing now from the El Nino won't reach some of the aquifers for centuries. (Got that time frame from having my own well water periodically tested, and the tech guy claiming that the water I'm using now is probably 100 years old). Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but this process doesn't seem as finite as, say, extracting fossil fuels out of the ground.

Correct. http://water.usgs.gov/edu/gwdepletion.html

A proportion of the panic about sinking south pacific Islands is related to groundwater depletion.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Exile

Don't many (if not all) underground aquifers get replenished to some extent by surface water percolating down into them? And doesn't some of the water that's extracted by humans for agriculture find it's way back into that same aquifer over time? So I guess it's when the rate of human extraction exceeds the rate of replenishment that there would be a net increase in the amount of water finding it's way to the sea. But then some of that returns to water vapor and winds up as surface water again through rain & snow, and the cycle starts anew. Given the time scale of the replenishment, it could be that the flooding we're seeing now from the El Nino won't reach some of the aquifers for centuries. (Got that time frame from having my own well water periodically tested, and the tech guy claiming that the water I'm using now is probably 100 years old). Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but this process doesn't seem as finite as, say, extracting fossil fuels out of the ground.

No its not the same as pumping oil that millions of years to form however some of the waters in underground aquifers are tens of thousands of years old therefore until extracted were not in the normal water cycle. USGS Release: Million Year Old Groundwater in Maryland Water Supply (6/18/2012 10:59:17 AM)

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sea ice has no effect on sea level whatsoever. The melt water has to flow into the ocean off terrestrial ice sheets. The IPCC reports Antarctic ice sheet melt is adding around 0.27 mm annually to sea level rise as present (which is one reason that Dr Zwally is being crucified for his paper - he's opposing published IPCC data). To calculate how long the IPCC thinks it would take to melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet as a result of this "catastrophic" AGW, just divide the 60 m sea level rise that would result from loss of the Antarctic ice sheets by that 0.27 mm number.

Another Antarctic factoid is that the weight of ice sitting over the Antarctic continent has pushed the ground down an estimated 1000 metres. The land would progressively rebound as the ice sheets thinned. Solid rock isn't as solid as we tend to think it is.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

As some links posted by s ientists say the increase to the Antarctic ice sheet more than negate the .27 km rise that the IPCC claims personally I would rather listen to scientists and not political organisations.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by StuM

To religious fanatics, even the slightest hint of apostasy is unbearable.

Unlike science which embraces scepticism and falsification of hypotheses.

It's a sure sign that climate alarmism is religion, not science.

Sorta surprised that Dr. Zwally's recent paper got through the NASA dept. chiefs who I imagine are political appointees. Maybe because it doesn't sound like he made any direct conclusions about MMGW but rather simply reported on the current net expansion of Antarctic ice. Sorta like skipping out on Sunday church but not denying the existence of God??

It's funny, I stumbled on a couple of interviews with the villainous Dr. Happer from Princeton & another noted "skeptical" scientist from MIT (forgot the name). In separate interviews, they both acknowledged evidence of a long-term warming trend, along with the likelihood of humans logically having some impact on that trend. So according to geniuses like John Cook, that puts both of them into the 97% consensus! But of course neither believes there is credible evidence of a threat, emphasize that the Earth has always been on either a long-term warming or cooling trend, and are therefore not concerned about evidence that the past 10 years may have been the "warmest." If it's a long-term warming trend, after all, then it only follows that the warmest years would have been the most recent! Are you following the logic, L-E?? This is why, it seems, evidence of increasing polar ice & the UAH sat data is ruffling so many establishment feathers. The sat data also shows a warming trend, just not nearly as steep & therefore concerning as the (adjusted) surface NOAA data, and thus not necessarily correlative with the long-held establishment position, namely that the rapid increase in CO2 from industrialization is causing warming that is disproportionate to natural trends.

Speaking of, Happer also pointed out that, not only did our predecessor primates survive just fine on Earth with CO2 ppm's in the 1000's, but there are other examples of such environments with modern humans, notably those doing extended service on submarines and on the space station. I don't understand how the diehard "warmistas" (thanks Jim) can ignore taking these various other factors into account.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by newhaul

As some links posted by s ientists say the increase to the Antarctic ice sheet more than negate the .27 km rise that the IPCC claims personally I would rather listen to scientists and not political organisations.

Ahh yes, but the alarmists are now saying that "if the 0.27 mm isn't coming from Antartica, then it's coming from somewhere else and that's really bad news because it's worse then we thought!"

Of course, the 0.27 sky is falling crowd probably overlap with the ones that tell us the good Doc's measurements aren't accurate enough (because of the precision required!) because he didn't get the results they wanted.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

GCMS is an acronym for?

Sorry, sticky finger on the shift key. That should have been GCMs.

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Exile

From what I gather from the literature, sea level is a complex thing to try & measure. There are also significant factors other than melting sea ice, such as the constant rising & falling of the land (presumably that which lies under the oceans & that which surrounds), and thermal expansion of water. Accordingly, there's a margin of error that doesn't seem to have yet been definitively surpassed.

The one that makes me laugh is the "glacial isostatic adjustment" or GIA correction that they came up with.

Their theory goes something like this:

1. Parts of the continents are still rebounding from the removal of the weight of ice during the last glacial period and oceans are becoming deeper.
2. Therefore the oceans are getting larger
3. Therefore they can hold more water without the observed sea level rising.
4. If the land wasn't rising and the oceans weren't getting larger, sea levels would be rising faster.
5. So we adjust the measured sea rise upwards to report what seal level rise would be if everything was static.

IOW, they are not reporting

a. How much sea level has risen relative to coastlines.
or
b. How much sea level has risen relative to the centre of the earth.

Instead they are reporting an entirely notional figure of how much the sea level would have risen if the continents weren't rebounding.

A fairly meaningless figure which just happens to be larger than a or b above.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Sea ice has no effect on sea level whatsoever. The melt water has to flow into the ocean off terrestrial ice sheets. The IPCC reports Antarctic ice sheet melt is adding around 0.27 mm annually to sea level rise as present (which is one reason that Dr Zwally is being crucified for his paper - he's opposing published IPCC data). To calculate how long the IPCC thinks it would take to melt the entire Antarctic ice sheet as a result of this "catastrophic" AGW, just divide the 60 m sea level rise that would result from loss of the Antarctic ice sheets by that 0.27 mm number.

Got it, thanks. I was confusing how water expands when it forms into ice, but I guess it just gets less dense but the volume doesn't change. Or something like that. Layman mistake.

So the big deal about measuring sea ice (volume = extent + thickness, right?) is that shrinkage could be evidence of warming, which could mean the land ice will also melt, which means more water will be added to the oceans, which means sea level rise, which means we're all gonna die. Sound about right?

Another Antarctic factoid is that the weight of ice sitting over the Antarctic continent has pushed the ground down an estimated 1000 metres. The land would progressively rebound as the ice sheets thinned. Solid rock isn't as solid as we tend to think it is.

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

OK, so land ice melts, more water added to the oceans, but added water is offset by the rising land. Sounds like another one of Earth's balanced systems. But see Stu's post above.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by Exile

OK, so land ice melts, more water added to the oceans, but added water is offset by the rising land. Sounds like another one of Earth's balanced systems. But see Stu's post above.

You'd have to live on the rebounding land to get the net uplift effect, I think. What Stu is saying wouldn't surprise me in regard to sea level measurement at all as it seems to be par for the course that these kind of numbers are always as inflated as possible or otherwise used without proper quantification in order too propagate the most alarm.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Exile

Sorta surprised that Dr. Zwally's recent paper got through the NASA dept. chiefs who I imagine are political appointees.

(I thought you didn't do 'conspiracy')

Originally Posted by Exile

... If it's a long-term warming trend, after all, then it only follows that the warmest years would have been the most recent! Are you following the logic, L-E??

We could be in a long-term warming trend AND AGW could still be making it worse. They're not incompatible ideas.

Recently, what I've (sorta) been following here is several pages of cruisers endeavouring to prove/disprove some specific scientific points... which shows that the little grey cells are being stimulated and employed (never a bad thing)... but in the end, it's still just a few cruisers googling away to find support for their positions pro and con, and even Ted Cruz won't be calling a group of CF members to testify before Congress on AGW. (translation: maybe we should just let the scientists get on with studying it)

The link you posted a while back...(U of Alabama, interview with Spence?)... that was possibly the most interesting and persuasive thing I've read about a real scientist with sincere objections to some of the "consensus".

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

(I thought you didn't do 'conspiracy')

I generally don't. That was always one of your characterizations in response to evidence of group-think, incentivizing research grants, & over-politicization of the science generally. You can decide to believe it or not, but it's a well-documented part of the record. C'mon, AGW is a formal part of the platform of one of the two major political parties in the U.S., the same one which has been in charge of the executive branch the past 7 years. It's unfortunate but hardly surprising that the politically appointed department chiefs at the lead scientific agencies would hold the same position on AGW.

But "conspiracy" is a bit strong since it implies willfulness, corruption, and even criminality. For example, James Hansen was a dominant force at NASA for many years. He is considered the "founding father" of the MMGW movement. While I don't deny his brilliance or credentials, he became an ideologue and this is why other scientists like Roy Spencer left the agency. Hansen's got numerous arrests trying to block entrances to coal plants & for protests in front of the White House, has compared boxcars on trains carrying coal to those that carried victims of the holocaust to extermination camps, has tried to discredit scientists who challenge his views on MMGW. He finally retired from NASA so he could pursue ideology & politicking full-time! It's all in his Wiki, and it's probably fair to say that MMGW has become his "religion." Then again, I don't know if it's also fair to say the guy "conspired" to pursue his scientific/political/economic/social agenda, but what do you think it'd be like working under him if, as a scientist, you held opposing views?!

We could be in a long-term warming trend AND AGW could still be making it worse. They're not incompatible ideas.

I agree they are absolutely not incompatible. In fact, Jack's premise -- supported by his usual array of sources -- asserts that the Earth should now be in a cooling trend. If you believe this, then it only follows that any evidence of a warming trend could signal the influence of AGW. But do YOU feel qualified to evaluate these different scientific theories and their supporting evidence, or are you more like me and just have to accept that the science is unsettled?

Recently, what I've (sorta) been following here is several pages of cruisers endeavouring to prove/disprove some specific scientific points... which shows that the little grey cells are being stimulated and employed (never a bad thing)... but in the end, it's still just a few cruisers googling away to find support for their positions pro and con, and even Ted Cruz won't be calling a group of CF members to testify before Congress on AGW. (translation: maybe we should just let the scientists get on with studying it)

Rest assured they all will be, with or without CF! But for better or worse, the "science" has been co-opted by many non-scientists who are trying to use it to influence policy decisions that could affect all of us in serious ways. I, for one, prefer trying to evaluate such proposed changes independently, and not merely relying on what others simply tell me is the "right thing" to do. This thread has been educational for that purpose.

The link you posted a while back...(U of Alabama, interview with Spence?)... that was possibly the most interesting and persuasive thing I've read about a real scientist with sincere objections to some of the "consensus".

It was a 2015 interview of Spencer & Christy by what appeared to be a Univ. of Alabama online publication. It certainly appeared less biased than the usual internet sources you so often find, but who knows? We all get to believe whatever we want, but I personally don't feel that these scientists are swayed by their religious beliefs as some insinuate, that the ones using research grants funded by oil cos. are "on the take," or that scientists employed by the govt. are in lockstep with their bosses only for selfish career advancement purposes. I'm sure there are a few who might be susceptible to this lack of professionalism, but on the whole I think it's more reasonable to assume that they are, like most of us, somewhat predisposed to a particular position, turn that into a working hypothesis, and then set out to discover evidence that supports it. One exception to this might be Hansen who seems to have fallen off his ideological stool one too many times. But I would think it's less about some big conspiracy or rampant corruption, and more about simple human nature, much of which is in fact susceptible to acceding to more popular, consensus-type positions and group-think.

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

If you'd cut and pasted directly from skepticalscience instead of paraphrasing your explanation it wouldn't have come across as some odd attempt to blame sea ice variations mostly on albedo.


Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

That was not paraphrased from SkepticalScience, I rarely go there, usually just to confirm something I've heard about the site. If they have something similar to what I said, well possibly it's because what I said is just a statement of (simplified) fact.

I have no idea how the following can be construed as 'blaming sea ice variations mostly on albedo',


'At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that Antarctica is an ice covered land mass, when the sea ice is at it's greatest it's dark (winter) so although the albedo is higher (more reflective), there's very little sun anyway. Most of the Antarctic sea ice melts away every year anyway, so the Southern ocean albedo is relatively moot. Conversely, when the sea ice in the Arctic is not there, it's summer and the albedo change from ice to sea water is dramatic and very important. This is a very gross oversimplification, but I hope it gets the point across.'

so let me try one more time.

In the winter, when sea ice around Antarctica is greatest, there is less sun because the pole is tilted away from the sun. Therefore, when the reflectivity is greatest (highest albedo), there is less sun to be reflected anyway. Given that most of the sea ice around Antarctica melts every summer, the lack of sea ice in the summer is moot, because the albedo is low every year. The albedo remains high in summer over Antarctica itself because it is land and the ice covering it doesn't melt.

In the Arctic though, if the sea ice melts, then the ocean surface is exposed to the sun. The ocean has a very low albedo, although at higher latitudes it is not a low as at more tropical latitudes, So whatever warming that may already be occurring is exacerbated by the additional heating caused by the non reflectivity of water as compared to ice.

Sea ice melting is caused mostly by heating from both water and air. Albedo is a measure of reflectivity. Generally speaking, the lower the albedo, the more easily energy can be absorbed. Ice has a high albedo (0.5-0.7), sea water does not (0.08-0.09).

And with that, I'm out.

[Reefmagnet]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

That was not paraphrased from SkepticalScience, I rarely go there, usually just to confirm something I've heard about the site. If they have something similar to what I said, well possibly it's because what I said is just a statement of (simplified) fact.

I have no idea how the following can be construed as 'blaming sea ice variations mostly on albedo',


'At any rate, the point, as has ben alluded to previously, is that Antarctica is an ice covered land mass, when the sea ice is at it's greatest it's dark (winter) so although the albedo is higher (more reflective), there's very little sun anyway. Most of the Antarctic sea ice melts away every year anyway, so the Southern ocean albedo is relatively moot. Conversely, when the sea ice in the Arctic is not there, it's summer and the albedo change from ice to sea water is dramatic and very important. This is a very gross oversimplification, but I hope it gets the point across.'

so let me try one more time.

In the winter, when sea ice around Antarctica is greatest, there is less sun because the pole is tilted away from the sun. Therefore, when the reflectivity is greatest (highest albedo), there is less sun to be reflected anyway. Given that most of the sea ice around Antarctica melts every summer, the lack of sea ice in the summer is moot, because the albedo is low every year. The albedo remains high in summer over Antarctica itself because it is land and the ice covering it doesn't melt.

In the Arctic though, if the sea ice melts, then the ocean surface is exposed to the sun. The ocean has a very low albedo, although at higher latitudes it is not a low as at more tropical latitudes, So whatever warming that may already be occurring is exacerbated by the additional heating caused by the non reflectivity of water as compared to ice.

Sea ice melting is caused mostly by heating from both water and air. Albedo is a measure of reflectivity. Generally speaking, the lower the albedo, the more easily energy can be absorbed. Ice has a high albedo (0.5-0.7), sea water does not (0.08-0.09).

And with that, I'm out.

Very nice. Shame you forgot to factor in cloud cover which is greater in the summer over the Arctic.

http://www.earthobservatory.nasa.gov...reflector4.php

Sent from my SGP521 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app