Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

It should remained viewed that way.

••
alec

Jakobshavn Glacier losses at least 40 cubic kilometres of ice a year. Why is this specially relevant?

Because
a) it was an unusually large event - self evident due to the article.
b) it' provided a much needed visualization - a mountain range of ice

just as the use of hiroshima equivalents in commenting on the thermal impact of our malfeasance has gained currency

People need to visualize.
Hell Alec - this is a USA "we do not do metric" forum.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It's measureable
...
It's insignificant.
Move on.

And it's not any secret.
And it's not any novelty.
And it's not worth of any paper.
Because it's calculable.
And it's calculated.

 

[aleCcowaN]

It should remained viewed that way.

••
alec


Because
a) it was an unusually large event - self evident due to the article.
b) it' provided a much needed visualization - a mountain range of ice

just as the use of hiroshima equivalents in commenting on the thermal impact of our malfeasance has gained currency

People need to visualize.
Hell Alec - this is a USA "we do not do metric" forum.

Not so unusual. It's like saying it was an earthquake in California, 5.4 Richter.

I agree these events provide lively images of the consequences of our filthy environmental behaviour as a species but, is this the thread to remind that? That is my point.

I understand this thread to be the -much forced- place where global warming and its effects is proved or disproved by mostly scientific means and under a big sceptic magnifying glass, and news that are to be gone over with fine tooth comb. What you linked here is more suitable for general forums where general public is going to gain awareness by such pieces of news. Neither warmers nor deniers are really affected by "an event just like many others before or yet to come".

If you wanted us to get informed in a way like "look, here's an interesting event that you may share in other places to make people gain awareness on our current problems", I didn't understand it was meant that way. It wasn't clear it was meant that way.

If you wanted to say it was exceptional I felt the need to share it wasn't much so. Continental ice loss -some 20% of it coming from Greenland- matches the discharge of a Saint Lawrence or a Mississippi into the ocean, with the difference of those river's water coming from ocean evaporation while the ice melted contributes to rise the sea level.

In that scenario, the part of Greenland you are looking at is like a river that is weaker than the Columbia, the Missouri or the Tennessee, but certainly mightier than a Hudson River, but it has the bad habit to discharge itself through huge chunks every now an then, like Greenland is passing a kidney stone with all the expected screaming. Why don't they make a tourist attraction of it? Here, Perito Moreno Glacier rupture is a world class natural show.

Why don't we propose a thread with "news you should share about global warming"?

 

[aleCcowaN]

i agree, it is totally insignificant. but still a believe many people have about sea ice that is a missconception.

On the contrary. On the real world you have two options:

A) Sea ice melting doesn't contribute to sea level rise.
B) Sea ice melting do contribute to sea level rise.

If you have to choose one only for the state of knowledge and the awareness they are going to promote with the big public, which one would you choose?
B? with its risk of denialists telling the voters that warmers are trying to deceive them by making them believe that a glass with ice and water brims and overflows when the ice melts? or A?

B will immediately promote denialists' mocks and distortions by saying "hey, they are telling our coastal cities will be flooded because of the sea ice melting, them fools!", "A" will only promote people who usually don't know shill from shinola in scientific topics to be deprived of a piece of information very important for their quality of lives: a volume of fresh water makes the ocean to expand a tiny bit more than that volume itself.

If you prefer the approach fiat justitia etsi ruat caelum, fiat justitia et pereat mundus (Let justice be done though the heavens fall, let there be justice though the world perishes), then, yes, sea ice DO contribute to sea level rise. Did I mention I've already calculated how much in a recent post?

When this idiotic debate started, I was kinda soliloquying about the misplaced accents in the depiction of global warming.

 

[DC]

On the contrary. On the real world you have two options:

A) Sea ice melting doesn't contribute to sea level rise.
B) Sea ice melting do contribute to sea level rise.

If you have to choose one only for the state of knowledge and the awareness they are going to promote with the big public, which one would you choose?
B? with its risk of denialists telling the voters that warmers are trying to deceive them by making them believe that a glass with ice and water brims and overflows when the ice melts? or A?

B will immediately promote denialists' mocks and distortions by saying "hey, they are telling our coastal cities will be flooded because of the sea ice melting, them fools!", "A" will only promote people who usually don't know shill from shinola in scientific topics to be deprived of a piece of information very important for their quality of lives: a volume of fresh water makes the ocean to expand a tiny bit more than that volume itself.

If you prefer the approach fiat justitia etsi ruat caelum, fiat justitia et pereat mundus (Let justice be done though the heavens fall, let there be justice though the world perishes), then, yes, sea ice DO contribute to sea level rise. Did I mention I've already calculated how much in a recent post?

When this idiotic debate started, I was kinda soliloquying about the misplaced accents in the depiction of global warming.

i don't give a , what deniers might think about it. i am sure most people would say sea ice would not contribute to sea level rise. when in fact it does. and that is all that matters to me.
and all sources that have been brought up, nicely point out how little it is. yet that does not change the fact that it does contribute.

and i dont care if you think it belongs here or not. you are not the one moderating this topic.

 

[DC]

you hardly find any AGW debate on the net where nobody brings up Cow farts in an attempt to ridicule AGW science. does that prevent scientists to research better diets for cows that might reduce cow farts?

 

[r-j]

Jakobshavn Glacier losses at least 40 cubic kilometres of ice a year.

The Amazon river loses 30 cubic kilometers of water. Each day. During the flood season.

Only 25 km3 of water each day the rest of the year.

The Amazon adds almost a 1000 cubic kilometers a year to sea level rise. That's almost 3mm

 

[aleCcowaN]

does that prevent scientists to research better diets for cows that might reduce cow farts?

They're surely looking after their burps instead of their farts (you didn't bite the denialist's hook but you may have swallowed their line and sinker) . Burps can be ridiculed by denialist all they want, but burps still can be proved relevant to the subject. And denialists -and others- may be ridiculed for not knowing which extreme of a ruminant to look.

Your assertions on this specific sea ice melting subject can also be ridiculed by denialists, but never be proved to be relevant to the subject. Do you get the difference?

 

[aleCcowaN]

The Amazon river loses 30 cubic kilometers of water. Each day. During the flood season.

Only 25 km3 of water each day the rest of the year.

The Amazon adds almost a 1000 cubic kilometers a year to sea level rise. That's almost 3mm

Your figures are off, a bit and a lot. 30; 15; 6600; 19.

Thank Darwin and Xenu for ocean evaporation, otherwise the Amazon would die of a severe case of diabetes insipidus.

Humour aside. Amazon basin contributes to a part of the seasonal signal in sea level that is removed from the TOPEX graphic. Here some images from GRACE about how Amazon's soils go up and down according to the seasons:

 

[DC]

They're surely looking after their burps instead of their farts (you didn't bite the denialist's hook but you may have swallowed their line and sinker) . Burps can be ridiculed by denialist all they want, but burps still can be proved relevant to the subject. And denialists -and others- may be ridiculed for not knowing which extreme of a ruminant to look.

Your assertions on this specific sea ice melting subject can also be ridiculed by denialists, but never be proved to be relevant to the subject. Do you get the difference?

well actually, they look at the Digestive System.

 

[aleCcowaN]

well actually, they look at the Digestive System.

No! do they? What's their conclusion? rülpsen oder pupsen? Sorry, six years of German in school weren't enough for me to have any practical skills at it (I'm equally inept in a lot of languages ). I can show you photos of cows here with their nasogastric tubes and external bags gathering belches. I didn't see any as sophisticated here.

I could follow the figures in the end but couldn't get what was in the bucket (...futter... was?)

[While watching, I couldn't help thinking (Homer's voice): Hmmmm! haggis! buseca! (from ancient Germanic "butze" -Kutteln-) callos a la madrileña! guiso de librillo! (bible -omasum-) There's anything they can't do! Now it's Winter, time to eat those]

 

[DC]

No! do they? What's their conclusion? rülpsen oder pupsen? Sorry, six years of German in school weren't enough for me to have any practical skills at it (I'm equally inept in a lot of languages ). I can show you photos of cows here with their nasogastric tubes and external bags gathering belches. I didn't see any as sophisticated here.

I could follow the figures in the end but couldn't get what was in the bucket (...futter... was?)

[While watching, I couldn't help thinking (Homer's voice): Hmmmm! haggis! buseca! (from ancient Germanic "butze" -Kutteln-) callos a la madrileña! guiso de librillo! (bible -omasum-) There's anything they can't do! Now it's Winter, time to eat those]

Kraftfutter , no clue what's in that. and can't find a translation. aditive fodder? the stuf that makes your cow give 30 litre of Milk instead of 15. and by this produces less Methane in the digestive system.

the blue buckets were water

the only thing i was thinking was.... WTF, she just put her hand into the cow

their conclusion is , with the right diet you can reduce the amount of Methane and increase the Milk production. so definitly a solution that will sell

 

[aleCcowaN]

Kraftfutter , no clue what's in that. and can't find a translation. aditive fodder? the stuf that makes your cow give 30 litre of Milk instead of 15. and by this produces less Methane in the digestive system.

the blue buckets were water

....

their conclusion is , with the right diet you can reduce the amount of Methane and increase the Milk production. so definitly a solution that will sell

Concentrated food, tell a couple of online dictionaries. I suppose you can't get milk without feeding the cow a lot of calcium and phosphorus, among other nutrients.

Here the conclusions were about the same: grassfed, less methane -and less transfatty acids-. They were studying cattle for meat.

the only thing i was thinking was.... WTF, she just put her hand into the cow

... and without gloves!!!

 

[aleCcowaN]

Today's update of ENSO: Recent Evolution, Current Status and Predictions.

Though weekly, it contains the monthly update about forecasts. On June 5th they're saying: «The chance of El Niño is 70% during the Northern Hemisphere summer and reaches 80% during the fall and winter. »

May's report estimated those chances to be 65%.

So, buckle up because we'll probably have pretty nice developments and debates in months to come.

 

[Reality Check]

What makes you think I didn't read them?
...snipped rant...

The fact that your reply was about ice sheets while the papers are about sea ice was a bit of a hint, aleCcowaN .

You seem to not understand:
* I know that for any practical purpose sea ice doesn't contribute to sea level rise. The papers I cited explain this. The blog article I cited explains this.
* I linked to a page explaining the science and linking to the papers containing the science.
* I linked to a page with a simple (and simplistic!) demonstration that melting ice increases the level of salt water.
* Melting glaciers on the Himalayas do contribute to additional sea level rise. They are not sea ice !
* One cubic meter of fresh water coming to the Indian Ocean from the Himalayas through the Ganges-Brahmaputra is still not sea ice !

At the moment "who I think you are" is someone who cannot tell the difference between sea ice, land ice and even river water !

But more seriously: If you are going to quote a link to a sea ice paper then I suggest that you
* do not go off on a derail about ice sheets without even mentioning the paper!
* do not write irrelevant stream of consciousness stuff.
* do not follow that with images that have nothing to do with the topic such as ocean temperatures at 700 m. depth
without making it clear that your post has nothing to do with what you quote!

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by DC View Post
does that prevent scientists to research better diets for cows that might reduce cow farts?

Eat kangaroo...no methane.

 

[DC]

Eat kangaroo...no methane.

i don't think that works in Switzerland. cows are pretty slow and don't move too much. but Kangoroos jump around like crazy and that would increase noise polution significantly with all those cow bells on kangoroos.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Fortunately everyone here knows what a strawman is.

The fact that your reply was about ice sheets while the papers are about sea ice was a bit of a hint, aleCcowaN .

You seem to not understand:
* I know that for any practical purpose sea ice doesn't contribute to sea level rise. The papers I cited explain this. The blog article I cited explains this.
* I linked to a page explaining the science and linking to the papers containing the science.
* I linked to a page with a simple (and simplistic!) demonstration that melting ice increases the level of salt water.
* Melting glaciers on the Himalayas do contribute to additional sea level rise. They are not sea ice !
* One cubic meter of fresh water coming to the Indian Ocean from the Himalayas through the Ganges-Brahmaputra is still not sea ice !

At the moment "who I think you are" is someone who cannot tell the difference between sea ice, land ice and even river water !

But more seriously: If you are going to quote a link to a sea ice paper then I suggest that you
* do not go off on a derail about ice sheets without even mentioning the paper!
* do not write irrelevant stream of consciousness stuff.
* do not follow that with images that have nothing to do with the topic such as ocean temperatures at 700 m. depth
without making it clear that your post has nothing to do with what you quote!

Do you realize how ridiculous your claims are? You depart of a caricaturization of my person telling that I mixed up one thing and the other. Yet, how do you explain I arrive a the same figure from your precious paper you say I didn't get? Just reply that. Do it. Don't worry. Everybody already knows.

Your problem seems to be you cannot tell apart sea floating in the ocean -whether afloat or part of a shelf, whether created from frozen sea water or slipped from a continental ice mass- from ice firmly resting on solid ground, be this ground underwater or above sea level, like in a Himalayan glacier.

If you haven't that clear, maybe you should read carefully this abstract:

[1] We combine new and published satellite observations and the results of a coupled ice-ocean model to provide the first estimate of changes in the quantity of ice floating in the global oceans and the consequent sea level contribution. Rapid losses of Arctic sea ice and small Antarctic ice shelves are partially offset by thickening of Antarctic sea ice and large Antarctic ice shelves. Altogether, 746 ± 127 km3 yr−1 of floating ice was lost between 1994 and 2004, a value that exceeds considerably the reduction in grounded ice over the same period. Although the losses are equivalent to a small (49 ± 8 μm yr−1) rise in mean sea level, there may be large regional variations in the degree of ocean freshening and mixing. Ice shelves at the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Amundsen Sea, for example, have lost 481 ± 38 km3 yr−1.

Once you have understood it. Read the actual paper. Be aware it has a mistake in paragraph 6, page 2 of 5. It says "Antarctic ice shelves decreased by 115 ± 43 km3 yr− 1 due to changes in their thickness." but it must say "increased".

But I think you've already crossed a point of no return...

 

[Reality Check]

Fortunately everyone here knows what a strawman is.
...snipped usual insults....

Yes they do, aleCcowaN: Going on about ice sheets in reply to posts about sea ice is a strawman.

Sea ice = ice floating in the ocean (afloat or part of a shelf) .
Ice sheet = ice on land + ice shelves.

An ice sheet is a mass of glacier ice that covers surrounding terrain and is greater than 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi),[1] thus also known as continental glacier.[2] The only current ice sheets are in Antarctica and Greenland; during the last glacial period at Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) the Laurentide ice sheet covered much of North America, the Weichselian ice sheet covered northern Europe and the Patagonian Ice Sheet covered southern South America.

Ice shelf

An ice shelf is a thick floating platform of ice that forms where a glacier or ice sheet flows down to a coastline and onto the ocean surface. Ice shelves are only found in Antarctica, Greenland and Canada. The boundary between the floating ice shelf and the grounded (resting on bedrock) ice that feeds it is called the grounding line. The thickness of ice shelves ranges from about 100 to 1000 meters.

If you haven't that clear, aleCcowaN, maybe you should read carefully this abstract:

[1] We combine new and published satellite observations and the results of a coupled ice-ocean model to provide the first estimate of changes in the quantity of ice floating in the global oceans and the consequent sea level contribution. Rapid losses of Arctic sea ice and small Antarctic ice shelves are partially offset by thickening of Antarctic sea ice and large Antarctic ice shelves. Altogether, 746 ± 127 km3 yr−1 of floating ice was lost between 1994 and 2004, a value that exceeds considerably the reduction in grounded ice over the same period. Although the losses are equivalent to a small (49 ± 8 μm yr−1) rise in mean sea level, there may be large regional variations in the degree of ocean freshening and mixing. Ice shelves at the Antarctic Peninsula and in the Amundsen Sea, for example, have lost 481 ± 38 km3 yr−1.

and note the absence of ice sheets. Once you have understood it. Read the actual paper. and look for ice sheets (only mentioned in the conclusion).

ETA: Of course if you just mistakenly wrote ice shelves as ice sheets then this conversation is moot.

 

[aleCcowaN]

<pity-to-watch-to text snipped>

As your post contents become increasingly discombobulated at a dangerous rate, I revised when and how all of this started.

I think that you thought I was replying to you when I wasn't, and the other way around, and then something similar to blind fury took control of you. In red, every text addressing yours -exclusively or mainly-

My understanding is that melting sea ice does raise the sea levels, but not to a significant extent compared to the other causes of sea level rise.

If you have a glass of water with ice cubes and the cubes melt -without the liquid modifying its temperature-, does the water level in the glass rise, drop or stay constant? Remember that the ice is not part of the liquid level, and that by sea ice we only include floes -ice cubes in the glass-, not chunks of ice-shelves -new ice cubes dropped in the glass-.

Sea level rise due to floating ice?

Not for your example due to Archimedes’ principle.
But a small rise in sea water. Sea ice is lower in salt than sea water. When it melts the sea loses salinity, loses density and gains volume.

... and the former ice becomes salty water again .

Y'all can follow the rest of the story -and its place in the big picture- by looking into "halosteric component of steric sea level change". The last 30 years in figure 7 of this basic resource, may explain how the loss of sea ice and the new fresh water coming from melting glaciers and continental ice-shelves, risen sea level?

You may find tiny ups and downs, according to where the saltier water goes.

I propose you to take, say 1,000 km3 of sea ice, 0% salt, only 890 km3 of it below sea surface, and 100,000 km3 of sea water, 3.5% salt, all at 0°C, all at sea level -for the sake of a straightforward calculation-, and crunch the final variation of volume and sea level -remember 110 km3 of ice were above sea level-. You only need a table or figure of seawater densities at 0°C when salinity varies.

Let me know your conclusions and we'll take it from there.

following previous post.

Recent loss of floating ice and the consequent sea level contribution

You have to arrive to some conclusion like this one, but not the same. Then we'll take it from there. But, do we agree we're seeking the big picture here? or are we going to loop around tiny local and temporal changes?

Only a line was addressed to you. In none of those lines "ice sheet" is mentioned as it seems to worry you so much (continental ice shelves was my way to say ice floating in the ocean -meaning, with the sea beneath it- but coming from land glaciers, ice packs -including what is called ice sheets-, that's why shelves and not sheets, "continental shelves" like "Hungarian rhapsodies", they are shelves and they are rhapsodies, and they come from, or are related to the continent and Hungary, respectively. Capishe? By making that text a question, the right conclusion is even promoted: may? (or may not?) ---> all the fresh water diluting the salty ocean can't counteract a lot of other processes involving salinity and dilutions.

When I said "you have to arrive to a conclusion like this one" I meant y'all, and a conclusion like the one in the paper. I didn't supress the <quote=Reality Check;10058491></quote> just to acknowledge you contributed the paper.

Who in his sane mind can think that I would say in a post y'all and all the following yous within the same post wouldn't be y'alls too?

Which kind of bug bit you? Where's the "ice sheet" you're so horrified about? Make sure what you assert is there.

The summary of the situation is that you came to spoil what I was laying out with that kind of "refined facts" that are completely meaningless to the whole picture. I commented on yours -the red line- and quickly jumped to figure 7 to explain everybody how that variation and a thousand more that are entwined are all included in the halosteric component of sea level rise and that shows an overall effect of sea level drop.

From then on, you only interfered further with my explanations.

Why don't you look for "ice sheet" in my texts? Geez! I can't even get as an answer the Earth having an elliptic orbit because of Kepler's fault and I have to read about 49 microns a year. You shorten much quicker than 49 microns a year, even if you were 23!!! And if you insist in these doings 49 microns will be heigh your prestige is left in my perception.