Are the ice sheets really going to collapse?

[speedy 0]

The problem with Al Gore's 20 ft sea level increase and Hansen's even more apocalyptic predictions is that they do not even approach being sensible.
Note that they are boring down into ice that is over 300,000 years old. Why did it never melt before in much warmer periods in history?

Read it, it's interesting

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

> Are the ice sheets really going to collapse?

No. They are going to keep melting, just like they're doing now. (Unless we reduce our CO2 emissions, which won't happen.) Ice does not "collapse" generally.

>Note that they are boring down into ice that is over 300,000 years old.
>Why did it never melt before in much warmer periods in history?

Because some ice never melts.

[SpeedRacer 1]

In the Coastal Geology course I took in college, they pointed out that MOST of the sea level increase (if the planet were to warm up) would come not from glacial melt, but from thermal expansion of the water.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

In the Coastal Geology course I took in college, they pointed out that MOST of the sea level increase (if the planet were to warm up) would come not from glacial melt, but from thermal expansion of the water.

the water in southern california increases over 20 degrees (F) each year. It's of course the ocean average that matters, but it's a bit hard to see 1 degree being so significant, compared to the lunar cycles and the salinity levels.

The predictions on the rise seem to vary wildly. The 20-30ft ones seem to be replaced by ones closer to 5ft.

[billvon 3,120]

>the water in southern california increases over 20 degrees (F) each year.

You mean the water in the top 50 feet of the ocean near the shore, right? That's .00000000001% of the water in the pacific. Thermal contraction/expansion is a well-understood phenomenon, and is dependent upon the average temperature of all the water in the earth's oceans. And that's what's changing.

[TrophyHusband 0]

i heard a hypothesis that global warming will cause more precipitaion over the poles resulting in more frozen water stored at the poles. is there any substance to that?

"Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama
www.kjandmegan.com

[billvon 3,120]

> i heard a hypothesis that global warming will cause more precipitaion
>over the poles resulting in more frozen water stored at the poles. is there
>any substance to that?

Quite possibly. Warmer water = more evaporation, which = more precipitation in colder areas. Antarctica is a good possibility. It's melting faster but it may also be snowing more. (Hard to tell since there aren't a lot of weather stations at the south pole.)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>the water in southern california increases over 20 degrees (F) each year.

You mean the water in the top 50 feet of the ocean near the shore, right? That's .00000000001% of the water in the pacific.

slightly more than 50ft...that's why many Monterey divers like heading south in the summer. Hood free diving is a pleasure.

[Andrewwhyte 1]

another factor not really understood is the impact of melting permafrost in Canada and Russia.

[speedy 0]

There are lots of factors the IPCC does not understand or model well in their predictions....

"Principal Model Deficiencies" - "ModelE [2006] compares the atmospheric model climatology with observations. Model shortcomings include ~25% regional deficiency of summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2, deficiency in absorbed solar radiation and net radiation over other tropical regions by typically 20 W/m2, sea level pressure too high by 4-8 hPa in the winter in the Arctic and 2-4 hPa too low in all seasons in the tropics, ~20% deficiency of rainfall over the Amazon basin, ~25% deficiency in summer cloud cover in the western United States and central Asia with a corresponding ~5°C excessive summer warmth in these regions. In addition to the inaccuracies in the simulated climatology, another shortcoming of the atmospheric model for climate change studies is the absence of a gravity wave representation, as noted above, which may affect the nature of interactions between the troposphere and stratosphere. The stratospheric variability is less than observed, as shown by analysis of the present 20-layer 4°x5° atmospheric model by J. Perlwitz [personal communication]. In a 50-year control run Perlwitz finds that the interannual variability of seasonal mean temperature in the stratosphere maximizes in the region of the subpolar jet streams at realistic values, but the model produces only six sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs) in 50 years, compared with about one every two years in the real world. ..."(Climate simulations for 1880-2003 with GISS modelE, 6Mb .pdf)

And Billvon is complaining about a few watts extra per m² due to CO2

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[AWL71 0]

Much ado about nothing. And yes, I am a crazzeee denier.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[billvon 3,120]

>Model shortcomings include ~25% regional deficiency of summer
>stratus cloud cover off the west coast of the continents with resulting
>excessive absorption of solar radiation by as much as 50 W/m2 . . .

What do you think this means? If you think it means that "climate models don't work" then you did not understand the article.

>And Billvon is complaining about a few watts extra per m² due to CO2 . .

That's all it takes.

[speedy 0]

I think it means that in certain areas of the model it is calculating 50 W/m² more absorption than actually is observed/measured.

So I add your few watts to that and what do we have?
not a lot of difference.

Watt am I missing?

Edited to add: The climate models do work, but that does not mean they make sense or produce anything useful. GIGO

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

>So I add your few watts to that and what do we have?
>not a lot of difference.

"I just painted a parking lot white. That's 100 watts/square meter LESS absorption, over a huge area! Those global warming people are full of shit. More absorption my ass."

Such a statement would be rather silly, no? Because what we care about is the AVERAGE amount of heat absorbed/reflected planetwide. CO2, being a well-mixed, long persistance gas, affects every square inch of the planet every day of the year. Parking lots affect small areas all year. Summer stratus cloud cover off the west coast affects a small area of the planet for only 1/4 of the year.

In other words, 2 watts per square meter on every square meter of the planet every day of the year has a much bigger effect than 25 watts per square meter just off the coast during the summer only.

>The climate models do work, but that does not mean they make sense
>or produce anything useful.

So they are useless but useful? Not sure what you are trying to say.

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Warming was predicted by models; warming happened.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Warming was predicted by models; warming happened.

uh...can't I use that same logic to say my quarter predicted the warming by coming up heads?

[billvon 3,120]

>can't I use that same logic to say my quarter predicted the warming
>by coming up heads?

If:

-the final orientation of your quarter was determined by historical climactic data
-the orientation, when compared to historical records, accurately predicted what happened
-it was repeatable even when you flipped it dozens of times

then yes, your quarter might be a good predictor of warming.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

>can't I use that same logic to say my quarter predicted the warming
>by coming up heads?

If:

-the final orientation of your quarter was determined by historical climactic data
-the orientation, when compared to historical records, accurately predicted what happened
-it was repeatable even when you flipped it dozens of times

then yes, your quarter might be a good predictor of warming.

I'd pay at least $10 for a quarter like that!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[speedy 0]

only $10 !!!
Goverments are spending billions for that quarter.

Works as well as the quarter, just that they use lots of zeroes and 1'S instead of just one.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[billvon 3,120]

>I'd pay at least $10 for a quarter like that!

I'd pay $10.25!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>can't I use that same logic to say my quarter predicted the warming
>by coming up heads?

If:

-the final orientation of your quarter was determined by historical climactic data
-the orientation, when compared to historical records, accurately predicted what happened
-it was repeatable even when you flipped it dozens of times

then yes, your quarter might be a good predictor of warming.

When did you flip it dozens of times?

You have a single affirmation - model says it will warm, it has warmed. But that's not sufficient to prove the model is valid...the usual causation/correlation concern.

[billvon 3,120]

>When did you flip it dozens of times?

When dozens of models predicted warming.

Two basic types of models are atmospheric circulation models and oceanic circulation models. Most "global" models combine the two. Here are a few different models:

BCC-CM1
CCSR/NIES
CCCma
CCSm3
CSIRO
Hadley
GFDL
MPIM
NCAR PCM
NCAR CSM

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>When did you flip it dozens of times?

When dozens of models predicted warming.

No, your claim was that 'the proof was in the pudding.' The outcomes proved the validity. But we only have one outcome, which I guess you're claiming validates dozens of models. ??

Bottom line, we have one event. And at this level of simplicity, it does not different from a single flip of a fair coin.

[billvon 3,120]

>No, your claim was that 'the proof was in the pudding.'

Yes. That expression means "the validity of a recipe is if it works (and tastes good) not if the recipe looks good." Likewise, if climate models accurately predict the climate, then they work.

>Bottom line, we have one event.

Incorrect. There have been dozens of models predicting behavior over about 30 years now. Their congruency to the actual results reveals which one works best, and thus future models are improved. This happens continually.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>No, your claim was that 'the proof was in the pudding.'

Yes. That expression means "the validity of a recipe is if it works (and tastes good) not if the recipe looks good." Likewise, if climate models accurately predict the climate, then they work.

My coin came up heads. My model works just as well.

Come on - you know that's not science. Stop pretending just because you prefer the result. Besides, you can come up with a much better defense than 'they match the result.'

[billvon 3,120]

>Come on - you know that's not science.

Actually, it is.

1) Create a new hypothesis based on known science.
2) Perform experiments to test the hypothesis. (In this case compare predicted results against actual results.)
3) Correct hypothesis as needed and repeat.