Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist

[healthmyths]

So you think that you can do the math better than the USGS? LOL

NO I'm just trying to figure out how 1.7% of water (in glaciers) added to 96% (in oceans)
would cause 230 foot rise!

Common sense is if you add 1.7% more water to a average back yard swimming pool's 20,000 gallons that would be 340 gallons spread out over the entire pool.. would you notice the difference?

Dumb fuck, what is the average depth of the container? The average depth of our oceans is 3800 meters. Add 1.7% more water, that is about 65 meters. You really need to take some remedial math there, old boy. Get back to us in a year or two when you have completed the calculations.

area sq miles average depth
Pacific Ocean 64,186,000 15,215 Mariana Trench, 36,200 ft deep
Atlantic Ocean 33,420,000 12,881 Puerto Rico Trench, 28,231 ft deep
Indian Ocean 28,350,000 13,002 Java Trench, 25,344 ft deep
Southern Ocean 7,848,300 13,100
Arctic Ocean 5,106,000 3,953 Eurasia Basin, 17,881 ft deep
Earth's Oceans - EnchantedLearning.com

An average of 11,630 feet adding 1.7% would be another 197 feet.
So it is possible 230 feet would be added.. BUT..

Other factors NOT considered in diminishing the 197 feet or 230 feet or your 213 feet..
Elasticity of area after glaciers melt..
With 385 BILLION tons of ice in all the glaciers that's a lot of weight on land that will
RISE as the glaciers melt so whatever additional water added would have to compensate for rising land.
Rivers would hold more water and yes while some banks would overflow not 230 feet!
Evaporation, lakes,etc...

I've just used the statement that sea levels would rise by 230 feet you say 213, I say 197..
but that's NOT considering land rise, rivers, lakes, absorbing water.
Still even if I'm half right 90 feet that still is NOT a drop in the OCEANS!

 

[skookerasbil]

The bomb throwers overreached in recent years and are going backwards. In fact, world green groups are meeting in Brazil this coming week to again change the mantra from "climate change" to "sustainable development".


When you constantly have to reinvent yourselves, you're losing. Its like the shit teams in major league baseball always coming up with new uniforms for the team. Only the perennial losers do it.


Thye fact is......in 2012, nobody cares about the science anymore.

 

[Neotrotsky]

The NYT Has Been Predicting Polar Ice Melt for 128 Years
no doubt these were "peer reviewed" as well



1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

 

[skookerasbil]

The NYT Has Been Predicting Polar Ice Melt for 128 Years
no doubt these were "peer reviewed" as well



1881: “This past Winter, both inside and outside the Arctic circle, appears to have been unusually mild. The ice is very light and rapidly melting …”
1932: “NEXT GREAT DELUGE FORECAST BY SCIENCE; Melting Polar Ice Caps to Raise the Level of Seas and Flood the Continents”
1934: “New Evidence Supports Geology’s View That the Arctic Is Growing Warmer”
1937: “Continued warm weather at the Pole, melting snow and ice.”
1954: “The particular point of inquiry concerns whether the ice is melting at such a rate as to imperil low-lying coastal areas through raising the level of the sea in the near future.”
1957: “U.S. Arctic Station Melting”
1958: “At present, the Arctic ice pack is melting away fast. Some estimates say that it is 40 per cent thinner and 12 per cent smaller than it was fifteen years [ago].”
1959: “Will the Arctic Ocean soon be free of ice?”
1971: “STUDY SAYS MAN ALTERS CLIMATE; U.N. Report Links Melting of Polar Ice to His Activities”
1979: “A puzzling haze over the Arctic ice packs has been identified as a byproduct of air pollution, a finding that may support predictions of a disastrous melting of the earth’s ice caps.”
1982: “Because of global heating attributed to an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide from fuel burning, about 20,000 cubic miles of polar ice has melted in the past 40 years, apparently contributing to a rise in sea levels …”
1999: “Evidence continues to accumulate that the frozen world of the Arctic and sub-Arctic is thawing.”
2000: “The North Pole is melting. The thick ice that has for ages covered the Arctic Ocean at the pole has turned to water, recent visitors there reported yesterday.”
2002: “The melting of Greenland glaciers and Arctic Ocean sea ice this past summer reached levels not seen in decades, scientists reported today.”
2004: “There is an awful lot of Arctic and glacial ice melting.”
2005: “Another melancholy gathering of climate scientists presented evidence this month that the Antarctic ice shelf is melting – a prospect difficult to imagine a decade ago.”

brilliant find bro..................

More k00k losing.

 

[g5000]

Again.. with logic and rational thinking tell me how adding 1.7% of the glacier melt to 96% of the earth's water, i.e world's Oceans would cause the oceans to rise 230 feet!

Your mathematical ignorance is not representing the AGW skeptic viewpoint well. Please stop. You are embarassing yourself.

 

[Old Rocks]

NO I'm just trying to figure out how 1.7% of water (in glaciers) added to 96% (in oceans)
would cause 230 foot rise!

Common sense is if you add 1.7% more water to a average back yard swimming pool's 20,000 gallons that would be 340 gallons spread out over the entire pool.. would you notice the difference?

Dumb fuck, what is the average depth of the container? The average depth of our oceans is 3800 meters. Add 1.7% more water, that is about 65 meters. You really need to take some remedial math there, old boy. Get back to us in a year or two when you have completed the calculations.

The problem with your Doomsday scenario, Rocks, is that it requires EVERY SINGLE CUBIC INCH of polar and glacial ice to melt. Don't you think that's just a little bit absurd?

Good lord! Even a two meter rise will cost trillions of dollar worldwide in relocation of port facilities, to say nothing of inland erosian of lowlaying farmlands.

 

[Old Rocks]

NO I'm just trying to figure out how 1.7% of water (in glaciers) added to 96% (in oceans)
would cause 230 foot rise!

Common sense is if you add 1.7% more water to a average back yard swimming pool's 20,000 gallons that would be 340 gallons spread out over the entire pool.. would you notice the difference?

Dumb fuck, what is the average depth of the container? The average depth of our oceans is 3800 meters. Add 1.7% more water, that is about 65 meters. You really need to take some remedial math there, old boy. Get back to us in a year or two when you have completed the calculations.

area sq miles average depth
Pacific Ocean 64,186,000 15,215 Mariana Trench, 36,200 ft deep
Atlantic Ocean 33,420,000 12,881 Puerto Rico Trench, 28,231 ft deep
Indian Ocean 28,350,000 13,002 Java Trench, 25,344 ft deep
Southern Ocean 7,848,300 13,100
Arctic Ocean 5,106,000 3,953 Eurasia Basin, 17,881 ft deep
Earth's Oceans - EnchantedLearning.com

An average of 11,630 feet adding 1.7% would be another 197 feet.
So it is possible 230 feet would be added.. BUT..

Other factors NOT considered in diminishing the 197 feet or 230 feet or your 213 feet..
Elasticity of area after glaciers melt..
With 385 BILLION tons of ice in all the glaciers that's a lot of weight on land that will
RISE as the glaciers melt so whatever additional water added would have to compensate for rising land.
Rivers would hold more water and yes while some banks would overflow not 230 feet!
Evaporation, lakes,etc...

I've just used the statement that sea levels would rise by 230 feet you say 213, I say 197..
but that's NOT considering land rise, rivers, lakes, absorbing water.
Still even if I'm half right 90 feet that still is NOT a drop in the OCEANS!

This is really funny.

First, 90 feet would put 10 feet of salt water in my house. Second, virtually every city that fronts the ocean would have huge problems. Might not be a drop in the oceans, but it would be a really big deal for many billions of people.

Second. The land doing the rebounding would be Greenland and Antarctica. And that rebound would displace water, making the sea level higher for the non-rebounding areas.

You really need to follow logic out to the end, not just make blind dumb statements.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Great WSJ Climate Debate: Alarmist Scientists Reveal The Incredible Lameness of Their Global Warming Science

The global warming and climate change debate waging in the pages of the WSJ and blogs exposes public to embarrassing "consensus" climate science failures\

This past week has seen a war of words breakout in the WSJ pages (here and here) between non-alarmists and alarmists. Although nearly 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age and that humans do have an influence on climate, the public (via the WSJ) has now been witness to the unbelievably lame argument made by global warming alarmist scientists.

As "97%" of the world populace knows, the IPCC has falsely prophesied for the last two decades that human CO2 emissions are causing "runaway" warming that is resulting in a climate "tipping point." As the above two charts clearly indicate, the IPCC climate model prediction of runaway warming has been immensely wrong.

The leftmost chart tracks HadCRUT annual global temperatures (light purple) versus the IPCC's climate model predictions. The blue, red and green curves are temperature projections if CO2 emissions continued "as is" and the orange curve is if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. (Light purple dotted line is anticipated anomaly by 2025 per the HadCRUT linear trend.)

Obviously, the observed global temperatures are robustly below all the climate model scenarios anticipated, even with actual CO2 emissions continuing their "business-as-usual" growth.

The second chart (rightmost) plots absolute annual global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 30 years, since January 1, 1982. The IPCC models and alarmists envision that global temperatures could exceed 20°C by year 2100 due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels - this chart puts the last 30 years in that alarmist context.

Per the linear trend of the last 30 years (1.58°C/century), global temperatures are on a path to reach 15.75°C by 2100, a maximum that is a fraction of the IPCC's much publicized catastrophic predictions. The blue curve is the 5-year average of annual temperature change - this is the actual outcome versus the scary "runaway," "tipping point" global warming that all alarmist scientists believed was occurring during the recent "warmest" decades.

Speaking of "warmest," this is now the go-to-scary-word of alarmist "consensus" scientists. Literally, they have been forced to use this lame adjective because of the embarrassing empirical evidence. In essence, "warmest" (take your pick - day, month, quarter, year and decade) replaces words such as "accelerating," "rapid" and "runaway" warming, which are demonstrably false.

Indeed, the lameness of the underlying AGW "science" has become palpable.

Conclusion:
1.The catastrophic (CAGW) theory is empirically a very lame theory
2.Global warming is not rapid, accelerating or runaway

•Since 1850 the per century linear trend is +0.43°C (+0.34°C by 2100AD)
•Last 30 years, the per century linear trend is +1.58°C (+1.40°C by 2100AD)
•Last 15 years, the per century linear trend is +0.34°C (+0.29°C by 2100AD)
•Last 10 years, the per century linear trend is -0.72°C (-0.63°C by year 2100AD)

C3: The Great WSJ Climate Debate: Alarmist Scientists Reveal The Incredible Lameness of Their Global Warming Science










Lets face it...........in 2012, the public is laughing at all the bomb throwers. For decades, the bombs got bigger and bigger and the public has now just tuned this shit out. But dont take my word for it.....................


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/14553/Dead-Last-Pew-Poll-Global-warming-finishes-22nd-of-22-top-policy-priorities-of-2012-A-quarter-of-Americans-now-find-climate-change-a-top-concern-down-from-almost-4-in-10-in-2007

 

[Zander]

Yet another "dope slap" of reality for the AGW alarmists. They are looking more pathetic each day.


Here is the high priest of hot air himself....

 

[Old Rocks]

The Great WSJ Climate Debate: Alarmist Scientists Reveal The Incredible Lameness of Their Global Warming Science

The global warming and climate change debate waging in the pages of the WSJ and blogs exposes public to embarrassing "consensus" climate science failures\

This past week has seen a war of words breakout in the WSJ pages (here and here) between non-alarmists and alarmists. Although nearly 100% of scientists agree that climate change is happening, that global warming has taken place since the Little Ice Age and that humans do have an influence on climate, the public (via the WSJ) has now been witness to the unbelievably lame argument made by global warming alarmist scientists.

As "97%" of the world populace knows, the IPCC has falsely prophesied for the last two decades that human CO2 emissions are causing "runaway" warming that is resulting in a climate "tipping point." As the above two charts clearly indicate, the IPCC climate model prediction of runaway warming has been immensely wrong.

The leftmost chart tracks HadCRUT annual global temperatures (light purple) versus the IPCC's climate model predictions. The blue, red and green curves are temperature projections if CO2 emissions continued "as is" and the orange curve is if CO2 emissions were held constant at 2000 levels. (Light purple dotted line is anticipated anomaly by 2025 per the HadCRUT linear trend.)

Obviously, the observed global temperatures are robustly below all the climate model scenarios anticipated, even with actual CO2 emissions continuing their "business-as-usual" growth.

The second chart (rightmost) plots absolute annual global temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 30 years, since January 1, 1982. The IPCC models and alarmists envision that global temperatures could exceed 20°C by year 2100 due to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 levels - this chart puts the last 30 years in that alarmist context.

Per the linear trend of the last 30 years (1.58°C/century), global temperatures are on a path to reach 15.75°C by 2100, a maximum that is a fraction of the IPCC's much publicized catastrophic predictions. The blue curve is the 5-year average of annual temperature change - this is the actual outcome versus the scary "runaway," "tipping point" global warming that all alarmist scientists believed was occurring during the recent "warmest" decades.

Speaking of "warmest," this is now the go-to-scary-word of alarmist "consensus" scientists. Literally, they have been forced to use this lame adjective because of the embarrassing empirical evidence. In essence, "warmest" (take your pick - day, month, quarter, year and decade) replaces words such as "accelerating," "rapid" and "runaway" warming, which are demonstrably false.

Indeed, the lameness of the underlying AGW "science" has become palpable.

Conclusion:
1.The catastrophic (CAGW) theory is empirically a very lame theory
2.Global warming is not rapid, accelerating or runaway

•Since 1850 the per century linear trend is +0.43°C (+0.34°C by 2100AD)
•Last 30 years, the per century linear trend is +1.58°C (+1.40°C by 2100AD)
•Last 15 years, the per century linear trend is +0.34°C (+0.29°C by 2100AD)
•Last 10 years, the per century linear trend is -0.72°C (-0.63°C by year 2100AD)

C3: The Great WSJ Climate Debate: Alarmist Scientists Reveal The Incredible Lameness of Their Global Warming Science










Lets face it...........in 2012, the public is laughing at all the bomb throwers. For decades, the bombs got bigger and bigger and the public has now just tuned this shit out. But dont take my word for it.....................


Dead Last! Pew Poll: Global warming finishes 22nd of 22 'top policy priorities of 2012': 'A quarter of Americans now find climate change a top concern, down from almost 4 in 10 in 2007' | Climate Depot

Now Steve, we give you peer reviewed articles published in scientific journals, authored by accredited scientists. And you give us shit like this. Pathetic.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yet another "dope slap" of reality for the AGW alarmists. They are looking more pathetic each day.


Here is the high priest of hot air himself....

Another senile old bastard that has nothing to debate with other than nonsense.