Experts: Cold snap doesn't disprove global warming

[L.K.Eder]

Okay, so here's some rough math...

approximate surface area of the oceans: 360,000,000 km2

Approximate volume of Greenland's Ice Sheet: Volume: 2,600,000 km3

So if you melt that much ice, how thick would the resultant water be over that size of an area?

Someone's going to have to check my math, but I seem to come up with a total of about 7.2cm.

Yes. Very catastrophic if my math is right.

How will we ever survive??!!??

Your math is wrong. But what else are we to expect.

My math is wrong, yet you have no proof as to why.

I guess your dishonesty is also to be expected.

What'd you get? 3 miles of water?

it is 7.2 m, punk. learn some math.

 

[Big Fitz]

Your math is wrong. But what else are we to expect.

My math is wrong, yet you have no proof as to why.

I guess your dishonesty is also to be expected.

What'd you get? 3 miles of water?

it is 7.2 m, punk. learn some math.

Show your work, bitch.

That said. I'm not too worried about a 7.2 meter rise over 1000 years. Assuming it's happening, and 100% of the water actually STAYS in the ocean and not lost to atmosphere due to evaporation.

 

[L.K.Eder]

My math is wrong, yet you have no proof as to why.

I guess your dishonesty is also to be expected.

What'd you get? 3 miles of water?

it is 7.2 m, punk. learn some math.

Show your work, bitch.

That said. I'm not too worried about a 7.2 meter rise over 1000 years. Assuming it's happening, and 100% of the water actually STAYS in the ocean and not lost to atmosphere due to evaporation.

0,0072 km is not 7,2 cm. no work for me. no soup for you.

 

[Big Fitz]

it is 7.2 m, punk. learn some math.

Show your work, bitch.

That said. I'm not too worried about a 7.2 meter rise over 1000 years. Assuming it's happening, and 100% of the water actually STAYS in the ocean and not lost to atmosphere due to evaporation.

0,0072 km is not 7,2 cm. no work for me. no soup for you.

Hark! Who was it again who said.... "Check my math"?

Remember that asshole?

And yet, you still ignore the extras of that. Over a thousand years, what's that mean even if you get a 100% conversion direction to water in the ocean (which is nigh impossible.)

That's right, fucking crickets. Nothing. Irrelevant. a 7mm rise a year. Whoopie fucking doo.

Plus this does not get into the gross agregate GOOD caused by the clearing of Greenland's arable land from glaciers and return to what they used to have back in the 1300's to work with.

Quit being a sanctimonious dick.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Show your work, bitch.

That said. I'm not too worried about a 7.2 meter rise over 1000 years. Assuming it's happening, and 100% of the water actually STAYS in the ocean and not lost to atmosphere due to evaporation.

0,0072 km is not 7,2 cm. no work for me. no soup for you.

Hark! Who was it again who said.... "Check my math"?

Remember that asshole?

And yet, you still ignore the extras of that. Over a thousand years, what's that mean even if you get a 100% conversion direction to water in the ocean (which is nigh impossible.)

That's right, fucking crickets. Nothing. Irrelevant. a 7mm rise a year. Whoopie fucking doo.

Plus this does not get into the gross agregate GOOD caused by the clearing of Greenland's arable land from glaciers and return to what they used to have back in the 1300's to work with.

Quit being a sanctimonious dick.

you are welcome. if you need help again in any basic pedestrian shit, you can PM me. then you won't look like the total fool you are again. and again. and again.

 

[Old Rocks]

I can't believe how many ignorant people there are who think that a climatologist can tell me with certainty what the weather is going to be like in 50 years, when the weatherman can't tell me with any certainty what it's going to be like five days from now.

Dooodeee....... Dr. Hansen stated in 1988 that it would be significantly warmer by this time, and that is certainly the case.

At that time yahoos like you were stating the the warming did not exist.

You cite an 'authority' who is under scrutiny for scientific fraud.

Brilliant!

Dr. Hansen under scruntiny for scientific fraud? I don't think so.

 

[Big Fitz]

Nooo... of course not. And the Hadley CRU emails were not damning at all.

 

[Big Fitz]

0,0072 km is not 7,2 cm. no work for me. no soup for you.

Hark! Who was it again who said.... "Check my math"?

Remember that asshole?

And yet, you still ignore the extras of that. Over a thousand years, what's that mean even if you get a 100% conversion direction to water in the ocean (which is nigh impossible.)

That's right, fucking crickets. Nothing. Irrelevant. a 7mm rise a year. Whoopie fucking doo.

Plus this does not get into the gross agregate GOOD caused by the clearing of Greenland's arable land from glaciers and return to what they used to have back in the 1300's to work with.

Quit being a sanctimonious dick.

you are welcome. if you need help again in any basic pedestrian shit, you can PM me. then you won't look like the total fool you are again. and again. and again.

And you still ignore the base point. 7 meters over a millennia is nothing.

 

[Old Rocks]

The melt in Greenland is not proceeding in a linear manner. It is proceeding in a curve, one that is increasing upward.

Not only that, but now Antarctica is adding almost as much water as Greenland, and has the potential to add much more sooner than Greenland.

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada - News Release

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada
2009-05-27 09:00:00.0

BOULDER—Melting of the Greenland ice sheet this century may drive more water than previously thought toward the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, which is being published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters, finds that if Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 may shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches (about 30 to 50 centimeters) more than in other coastal areas. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.


This visualization, based on new computer modeling, shows that sea level rise may be an additional 10 centimeters (4 inches) higher by populated areas in northeastern North America than previously thought. Extreme northeastern North America and Greenland may experience even higher sea level rise. (Graphic courtesy Geophysical Research Letters, modified by UCAR.) [ENLARGE] News media terms of use*

"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, the lead author. "Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise."

 

[L.K.Eder]

Hark! Who was it again who said.... "Check my math"?

Remember that asshole?

And yet, you still ignore the extras of that. Over a thousand years, what's that mean even if you get a 100% conversion direction to water in the ocean (which is nigh impossible.)

That's right, fucking crickets. Nothing. Irrelevant. a 7mm rise a year. Whoopie fucking doo.

Plus this does not get into the gross agregate GOOD caused by the clearing of Greenland's arable land from glaciers and return to what they used to have back in the 1300's to work with.

Quit being a sanctimonious dick.

you are welcome. if you need help again in any basic pedestrian shit, you can PM me. then you won't look like the total fool you are again. and again. and again.

And you still ignore the base point. 7 meters over a millennia is nothing.

big mouth, if you had any common sense, you would just slink away and shut your mouth instead of making any new "points" to try to keep some sort of dignity.

 

[Foxfyre]

The melt in Greenland is not proceeding in a linear manner. It is proceeding in a curve, one that is increasing upward.

Not only that, but now Antarctica is adding almost as much water as Greenland, and has the potential to add much more sooner than Greenland.

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada - News Release

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada
2009-05-27 09:00:00.0

BOULDER—Melting of the Greenland ice sheet this century may drive more water than previously thought toward the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, which is being published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters, finds that if Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 may shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches (about 30 to 50 centimeters) more than in other coastal areas. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.


This visualization, based on new computer modeling, shows that sea level rise may be an additional 10 centimeters (4 inches) higher by populated areas in northeastern North America than previously thought. Extreme northeastern North America and Greenland may experience even higher sea level rise. (Graphic courtesy Geophysical Research Letters, modified by UCAR.) [ENLARGE] News media terms of use*

"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, the lead author. "Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise."

I believe if you follow the money, NCAR is one of those 'scientific' groups that receives huge amounts of funding to study global warming so long as they can claim that there is some. If I am wrong about that, I will acknowledge my error.

On the theory that I'm right, however, I will post rebuttal from the World Climate site, equally biased in the other direction, but posting from a scientific journal that I simply did not have time to go hunting up tonight. They quote from that journal:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

World Climate Report Antarctic Ice Melt at Lowest Levels in Satellite Era

We know that even NASA and Goddard acknowledged awhile back that it has been unusual winds unrelated to global warming that that contributed to much of the extra ice melt in the Arctic and Greenland. Evenso, it is unlikely we'll see even most of that ice melt in our lifetime and if it did, it won't affect sea levels all that much and the melt will be gradual enough that we should have plenty of time to mitigate any coastal consequences.

 

[saveliberty]

The melt in Greenland is not proceeding in a linear manner. It is proceeding in a curve, one that is increasing upward.

Not only that, but now Antarctica is adding almost as much water as Greenland, and has the potential to add much more sooner than Greenland.

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada - News Release

Melting Greenland Ice Sheets May Threaten Northeast United States, Canada
2009-05-27 09:00:00.0

BOULDER—Melting of the Greenland ice sheet this century may drive more water than previously thought toward the already threatened coastlines of New York, Boston, Halifax, and other cities in the northeastern United States and Canada, according to new research led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR).

The study, which is being published Friday in Geophysical Research Letters, finds that if Greenland's ice melts at moderate to high rates, ocean circulation by 2100 may shift and cause sea levels off the northeast coast of North America to rise by about 12 to 20 inches (about 30 to 50 centimeters) more than in other coastal areas. The research builds on recent reports that have found that sea level rise associated with global warming could adversely affect North America, and its findings suggest that the situation is more threatening than previously believed.


This visualization, based on new computer modeling, shows that sea level rise may be an additional 10 centimeters (4 inches) higher by populated areas in northeastern North America than previously thought. Extreme northeastern North America and Greenland may experience even higher sea level rise. (Graphic courtesy Geophysical Research Letters, modified by UCAR.) [ENLARGE] News media terms of use*

"If the Greenland melt continues to accelerate, we could see significant impacts this century on the northeast U.S. coast from the resulting sea level rise," says NCAR scientist Aixue Hu, the lead author. "Major northeastern cities are directly in the path of the greatest rise."

Gee, I wish I could get the government to pay me to do fake research and report it on line. How much they paying you Old Rocks?

 

[Old Rocks]

The paragraph below says it all. Strong and persistant La Nina, solar minimum, yet it was just the lowest melt observed. Not an increase, but the lowest melt.

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

 

[Big Fitz]

you are welcome. if you need help again in any basic pedestrian shit, you can PM me. then you won't look like the total fool you are again. and again. and again.

And you still ignore the base point. 7 meters over a millennia is nothing.

big mouth, if you had any common sense, you would just slink away and shut your mouth instead of making any new "points" to try to keep some sort of dignity.

Deflect, run away and hide, chicken little. You prove nothing but your support for a phony religion.

 

[Big Fitz]

The melt in Greenland is not proceeding in a linear manner. It is proceeding in a curve, one that is increasing upward.

Oh darn! And that science was just proven fraudulent, thanks to the Hadley Hack. Back to the drawing board for finding a new chip to shovel your fascist salsa at us.

 

[Foxfyre]

The paragraph below says it all. Strong and persistant La Nina, solar minimum, yet it was just the lowest melt observed. Not an increase, but the lowest melt.

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

I think you're overlooking that there is ALWAYS melt in the summer. Common sense tells us that the ice packs will never just stablize and sit there unchanged. There is no place on Earth anywhere in which that would be the case. And common sense further tells us that if the ice pack continually increased with no significant melting, that we would eventually all be up to our hoo haws in ice no matter where on the planet we lived.

The point made was that the normal summer melt was the lowest ever recorded which suggests that Anarctica is most likely in no danger of melting anytime in a future we need to worry about.

 

[Old Rocks]

Antarctica doesn't have to all melt to have a significant effect. Just a couple grounded ice shelves break up, and we have a couple of meters of sea level rise.

 

[Old Rocks]

The melt in Greenland is not proceeding in a linear manner. It is proceeding in a curve, one that is increasing upward.

Oh darn! And that science was just proven fraudulent, thanks to the Hadley Hack. Back to the drawing board for finding a new chip to shovel your fascist salsa at us.

Oh my, another total idiot child. The science has not been proven fraudelent, and the evidence is from the GRACE satellite. That is NASA, nothing at all to do with the e-mails.

Information from real scientists is Fascist? You really need to check if the moon that you are drinking doesn't have a significant percentage of wood alcohol.

 

[L.K.Eder]

And you still ignore the base point. 7 meters over a millennia is nothing.

big mouth, if you had any common sense, you would just slink away and shut your mouth instead of making any new "points" to try to keep some sort of dignity.

Deflect, run away and hide, chicken little. You prove nothing but your support for a phony religion.

stop lying about me, lil fitz.

 

[Foxfyre]

Antarctica doesn't have to all melt to have a significant effect. Just a couple grounded ice shelves break up, and we have a couple of meters of sea level rise.

As only something over 40% of Anarctica has ice shelves and only about 1/9th of those extend above the ocean surface, they all could melt without causing significantl rise in the ocean levels though it could cause some desalinization which could have other effects. If the anarctic ice that is grounded should melt, that would be a real problem, but as already posted, there is little or no chance of that happening in a future we need to worry about.