Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^ The scientists don't write the reports, reporters do.

[JAStewart]

^^^^ The scientists don't write the reports, reporters do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_by_press_conference

 

[DamnSaxon]

Interesting to note that JAS's Wiki link mentions cold fusion. I remember all the guff in the press at the time about how this couldn't happen, and the ordure poured over Pons and Fleischmann as a result. Well, obviously it couldn't happen. How can respectable scientists ... etc., etc.

 

Pons and Fleischmann took the experiment East. If you check (I think it is) Hokkaido university's site, you can discover what happened. Without the "aid" of the Press, they are continuing the research, and, would you believe it ... they are seeing evidence - copious evidence - of cold fusion. Future benefits to the Far East now, not to the ignorant West.

 

Meanwhile, one or two more reports of all this fearsome global warming, from Global Research. Of course, these links only refer to weather, and of course mere weather has no influence on climate at all, but an interesting few articles all the same. Sell Speedo, buy Damart!

[Pleepsie]

This is also from the same newspaper article, hardly the press making it up - or trying to 'confuse' us.

Confuse was maybe not the right word, but as is fairly common, the article is light on details and strong on a headline number.

 

What was predicted? "6 feet".

Well, 6 feet based on what assumptions and with what degree of certainty?

 

If you say "a 50% confidence of a 4 to 6 feet rise by 2100, assuming the highest CO2 emission scenario" then you are saying something different than if you say "a 95% confidence of a sea level rise of at least 6 feet, regardless of feasible reductions in CO2 emissions", but both could well be reported as "6 feet".

 

The point of my original post was "here we have a climate scientist, who is widely approved of by goverments, having his data rubbished by the Met office. Could this be the start of more data questioning?"

 

The 6 ft rise was based on a research paper by Rahmstorf linking the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001 with a 0.7C rise in global temperature over the same period.

 

Most scientists accept those data and agree that sea levels will continue to rise. However, Rahmstorf then parted company from colleagues by extrapolating the findings to 2100 — when the world is projected to have warmed by up to 6.4C unless greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.

 

Based on the 7in increase in 1881-2001, Rahmstorf calculated that such a spike in temperature would raise sea levels by up to 74in — a jump that stunned other experts.

 

They say it is unsafe to use the relatively small increases in sea levels seen in the 19th and 20th centuries to predict such extreme changes in future.

 

Interesting how it is unsafe to use the figures from 120 years to reach one conclusion - but perfectly acceptable to use 30 years worth of figures to reach another!

[Evil Inky]

Interesting to note that JAS's Wiki link mentions cold fusion. I remember all the guff in the press at the time about how this couldn't happen, and the ordure poured over Pons and Fleischmann as a result. Well, obviously it couldn't happen. How can respectable scientists ... etc., etc.

As I remember, the press were initially quite enthusistic. It wasn't until it turned out nobody else could replicate their results that it became obvious Pons and Fleischmann were a busted flush.

Pons and Fleischmann took the experiment East. If you check (I think it is) Hokkaido university's site, you can discover what happened. Without the "aid" of the Press, they are continuing the research, and, would you believe it ... they are seeing evidence - copious evidence - of cold fusion. Future benefits to the Far East now, not to the ignorant West.

Two points:

a) if "copious evidence" of cold fusion were being produced, it would be headline news around the world

why would any future benefits of this research accrue to the Far East only ? The pneumatic tyre was invented by a Scotsman, but people of all nationalities use them.

[Pleepsie]

Now tests show the ice ISN'T melting: Sea water under shelf in the East Antarctic is still freezing

 

Sea water under an East Antarctic ice shelf showed no sign of higher temperatures, first tests showed today.

The Institute said the water under the Fimbul was about -2.05 degrees Celsius (28.31 Fahrenheit) - salt water freezes at a slightly lower temperature than fresh water.

Despite fears of a thaw linked to global warming that could bring higher world ocean levels, tests conducted on the Fimbul Ice Shelf showed the sea water is still around freezing point.

Thanks to sensors, lowered through three holes drilled in the shelf, scientists have discovered the water is not at higher temperatures widely blamed for the break-up of of 10 shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, the most northerly part of the frozen continent

 

After drilling through the shelf, which is between 250 metres and 400 metres thick, Ole Anders Noest of the Norwegian Polar Institute wrote in a statement: 'The water under the ice shelf is very close to the freezing point.

'This situation seems to be stable, suggesting that the melting under the ice shelf does not increase.'

http://

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1242398/Now-tests-ice-ISNT-melting-Sea-water-shelf-East-Antarctic-freezing.html

 

The same story is also on Reuters site.

[ArabiaTerra]

^^^^^ But on the other hand:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091125230727.htm

[Skunnered]

^^It would be useful if these scientists would get together and come up with a proper "consensus"!

And guess which of these two reports the IPCC will latch on to.

[ArabiaTerra]

The thing is, skunnered, both these reports are right. They're just about different things. And as far as a consensus goes, that's what the IPCC report in 2007 was all about. Looking at all the available science and coming up with a summary of what was going on.

 

What annoys me is that these IPCC reports only seem to come out every 5 years or so with no updates in between. More frequent reporting or maybe formal updates to the big reports would seem to be something we could do with.

 

For instance, the 2007 report had a prediction for sea level rise which the report itself conceded was on the low side because the dynamics of the ice sheets was poorly understood, so they'd just missed out the expected rise due to ice melt. This is now much better understood, yet there has been no formal update of the 2007 findings to reflect this and we still keep getting the 2007 figures being quoted even though everyone knows they are wrong.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

The main theory for sea level rise has nothing to do with ice melting .

And theory is the word to remember upon this subject .

[Skunnered]

^^^I don't fully understand that. Surely the main cause of the sea level rising would be the melting of ice from the land at Antarctica and over Greenland, in which case it is essential to get a clear understanding of what is happening (or likely to happen) there. And a "clear" understanding is what we don't appear to be getting from the scientists and researchers.

 

Of course we should also bear in mind that in some parts of the world the land itself is sinking, while in other parts it is rising, so we don't have a "one-measurement-fits-all" situation globally.

[Gorgonzola Butt-cheese]

Cold water is denser than warm water , there for warming will cause expansion of a body of water , an entire ocean perhaps .

Warming an ocean or oceans by 2 degrees c could cause a rise equal to or perhaps greater than all the ice in the world melting .

I have read that it is a theory that a sea level rise of 50 cm might be possible in 100 years time with a 2 degree rise , even if all the ice on arctic and antartic land masses remain intact .

I dont have a clue how they get these figures (theories) and it might happen or it might not , but I believe the first part to be true ,cold water is denser (more compact) than warm water. A ship will float higher in arctic waters than in tropical waters for the same gross tonnage .

[Carlos]

I have read that it is a theory that a sea level rise of 50 cm might be possible in 100 years time with a 2 degree rise , even if all the ice on arctic and antartic land masses remain intact.

Figure 70 here shows the contribution to the UKIP02 predicted sea level rise by various factors, with thermal expansion of seawater by far the biggest single one during this century.

http://www.ukcip.org.uk/images/stories/Pub_pdfs/UKCIP02TechRep/UKCIP02_Ch6.pdf

 

"The majority of sea-level rise by 2100 occurs due to thermal expansion of ocean water, with the melting of land ice in mountain glaciers and in the Greenland ice-sheet contributing smaller amounts. Over the next 100 years, it is thought that warmer temperatures and increased precipitation over Antarctica may actually result in a slight expansion of the Antarctic ice sheet, contributing to a fall in sea level of approximately the same magnitude as the contribution melting ice over Greenland makes to the rise in sea level."

[ArabiaTerra]

Still on the subject of sea-level rise, this is a rather alarming report.

[Pleepsie]

^^^

 

Perhaps this goes some way to explaining it.

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13205-first-subglacial-eruption-found-in-antarctica.html

 

Although the new volcano is probably the most recent one to have exploded, researchers have known about another subglacial volcano in Antarctica for some time.

 

Mount Casertz stands some 600 metres high, but the only sign of its existence from the surface is a large depression in the ice above caused by heat from the active cone melting the ice.

 

The same process could be happening in the ice around the Hudson Mountains volcano. This, say the researchers, could explain why the nearby Pine Island Glacier has experienced sudden accelerations toward the sea twice in the past few decades.