Arctic Sea Level Falling?

HRH King Lerxst with a link to BBC News' report that "Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year — a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters. ... It is well known that the world's oceans do not share a uniform height; but even so, the scientists are somewhat puzzled by their results."

Comments

Could Be A Number Of Things

[eldavojohn]

"I think it's a true statement to say the Arctic Ocean is the least well understood body of water out there" -- Dr Seymour Laxon, UCL

I think that's because few other bodies of water have a massive chunk of ice in them ... with many more smaller chunks floating around.

Funny things happen when you have solid H2O in liquid H2O that, on a large scale, are probably not well understood. I'm not a physicist but you have heat dissipation as Newton's Law of Cooling goes into effect and a multitude of climate issues. I can speculate on a few things:

• As the water becomes warmer, it is more prone to evaporation on the surface from the sun. Previously, less water would evaporate and keep the water levels slightly higher but now the difference in temperature at the surface is less making the water more easily transferred into a vapor.
• Gravity pulls down on the free floating icebergs and it displaces the water. These icebergs are shrinking or being reduced greatly so the water height in the vicinity lowers slightly while the water levels around the world rise slightly.
• The tides are becoming stronger and as the amount of water on the surface of earth increases, so does the effect of the moon on it. The moon pulls least on water at the caps and even more so on water near the equator.
• Some force (moon, internal gravity, spinning of the earth, sun, etc.) is causing the water to accumulate at the equator which in turn reduces the water at the poles.

Like I said, this is pure speculation and I haven't thought out in advance the above propositions. But I'm going to speculate that there's an unknown effect that occurs when massive bodies of ice are half submerged in water on a planet. The basis of this effect is probably known in physical and chemical fields of science but we just haven't put them together to figure it out. Hopefully we can figure it out as these "discoveries" are oftentimes the foundation for more work and more discoveries that benefit mankind. Translation: curiosity spurs innovation.

If there's one thing that Slashdot is good for, though, it's testing half cooked theories! My fellow colleagues, I welcome you to point out the scientific flaws in my above hypotheses!

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Nos.]

As the water becomes warmer, it is more prone to evaporation on the surface from the sun. Previously, less water would evaporate and keep the water levels slightly higher but now the difference in temperature at the surface is less making the water more easily transferred into a vapor.
Possible, but this would then result in more cloud cover. While this may be happening, I haven't seen any reports saying its happening. Of course more cloud cover would result in less light hitting the surface and thus reduce (reverse?) the effects of global warming

Gravity pulls down on the free floating icebergs and it displaces the water. These icebergs are shrinking or being reduced greatly so the water height in the vicinity lowers slightly while the water levels around the world rise slightly.
Not sure what you're saying here. The more water in ice, the lower the water levels will be. Global warming would mean less ice, higher water levels overall.

The tides are becoming stronger and as the amount of water on the surface of earth increases, so does the effect of the moon on it. The moon pulls least on water at the caps and even more so on water near the equator.
The tidal action caused by the moon would not be stronger unless the moon is moving closer to the Earth. I think we'd hear about that if it was happening. Also, we'd notice if the tides we're getting stronger.

Some force (moon, internal gravity, spinning of the earth, sun, etc.) is causing the water to accumulate at the equator which in turn reduces the water at the poles.
Again, we'd notice other things. If the moon we're closer, we'd notice stronger tides. If gravity we're being weakened, you'd notice on your scale in the morning. All of the forces you're suggesting would have much greater effects than dropping the water level 2mm at the poles.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[blakestah]

Not sure what you're saying here. The more water in ice, the lower the water levels will be. Global warming would mean less ice, higher water levels overall.

This is a common misconception.

Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.

This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water.

There has been an enormous reduction in the Arctic icepack since 1992. Explanations on the 3.2 mm decrease in sea level would seem likely to be explained simply by decreases in icepack which in turn reduce water levels.

They don't talk about the water temp much either, but water changes density with temperature, and 4C is the densest temperature for water. So a slight shift in water temperature could also have impacts on total water volume.

Also, the mean atmospheric pressure over the Arctic could have changed.

Interesting stuff.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as simple as that. Sure, some forms of cloud cover can increase albedo and reduce incident light however, water is a potent green house gas (think microwave oven). The reason we don't raise the issue publicly about H20 is because it is pervasive and--under current conditions--rapid cycling.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Nos.]

I didn't phrase that very well, you are of course correct. Ice has more volume that the amount of water needed to create that ice. I should have gone into more detail and talked about if it is from warming, the ice on land would be melting, breaking off, etc. overall raising the level of the oceans. Even dropping a new iceberg off a glacier will technically raise the level of the oceans slightly.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gravity pulls down on the free floating icebergs and it displaces the water. These icebergs are shrinking or being reduced greatly so the water height in the vicinity lowers slightly while the water levels around the world rise slightly."

No, gravity pulling on icebergs in the water doesn't affect the water level at all. Gravity pulls on the water too, and because ice is less dense than water, gravity pulls more on an equal volume of water than on ice. This is why ice floats. If you melt an iceberg that won't affect the water level either because the floating, less-dense ice will become more-dense water and end up filling the same space (because even though ice is less dense, part of it floats out of the water and fills in the newly-freed space from the melting, volume-reducing ice).

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[poor_boi]

I think that would have to be a pretty damn big piece of a glacier dropping off to raise an entire ocean 3mm. Maybe the entire glacier fell in? :-P

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Nos.]

Or maybe it was more than one. I never suggested that one raised the average level by 3mm.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Dr. Hok]

Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.

This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water.

Nope. The ice cubes will rise a bit out of the water because they're lighter than water. They rise until they replace exactly the volume of water they'd have once molten.

So while they melt, the water level stays exactly the same (modulo influences of salt and temperature).

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water.

This is actually due to other things. 1kg of ice floating in water displaces the same volume as 1kg of fresh water. When the 1kg of ice melts, it becomes 1kg of fresh water, filling the ice's hole perfectly. Now, if you fill a glass with ice then add water, the ice cannot all float and some pieces are wedged against the sides of the glass, so it displaces more water than it would in a buoyant state.

As the density of the water around the ice increases, the ice has to displace less water in order to float. If you float a 1kg icecube in saltwater, it would displace 1kg of saltwater, which because of the higher density would be a smaller "hole" than the volume of 1kg of fresh water released when the icecube melts.

Of course, things like air bubbles in the ice decrease the density of the ice and decrease the amount of water produced by melting that volume of ice, so there are a lot of other variables that have to be factored in to say whether or not a particular piece of ice will raise or lower the water level or not. Any ice sitting on anything else isn't actually floating and has to be dealt with differently as well.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Red Flayer]

"Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.
This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water"

Completely untrue, if the ice is free-floating. This only holds if the ice is held under water by the ice on top of it & physiscal restraints on movement of the ice.

Try this one: Take a large-diameter container, place enough ice cubes in it such that when it is filled with water, there is a single layer of cubes with room for them to move around a bit. Fill container until water almost spills over.

Observe the level of the ice -- there is some that sticks up out of the water over the level of the container. What happens when the ice melts? The water level remains the same -- this is because the ice displaces the volume of water it would occupy were it to melt.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[operagost]

Except, as expert environmentalist Al Gore told us in his croc^H^H^H^Hdocumentary, increased temperatures cause more glaciers to slide into the ocean. We're putting more ice into the glass. Try again.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Instine]

I am a physicist, and this is the closest you got to the most likely scenario (IMO).

"Some force (moon, internal gravity, spinning of the earth, sun, etc.) is causing the water to accumulate at the equator which in turn reduces the water at the poles. "

Not so much a force, but a lessening of one. The centripetal force of the spinning earth makes the oceans deeper at the equator. The viscosity of the water counters this. The viscosity is lessened with heat. Bingo!

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[EatHam]

This occurs because the ice is less dense than the water.

It occurs because of either witchcraft or Jesus' love, not your "density".

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Hoi Polloi]

Since we are pulling ideas out of our asses...

Actually it is just a geodesy affect. The satellite is drifing 2mm away from the earth and back every time it passes over the artic.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[JamesF1]

This may sound like a somewhat strange theory... but stick with me for a moment. As water becomes warmer, as eldavojohn pointed out, it is more prone to evaporation. As evaporation increases in speed, so does the formation of clouds, and the size of aforementioned clouds. Quicker formation of clouds means greater cloud cover and density. Greater cloud density means an increase in precipitation. Precipitation in the higher latitudes (arctic latitudes in this case) frequently results in snowfall. Snowfall onto glaciers and ice caps slowly increases the aforementioned in size at a similar rate to which water was lost from the same region due to evaporation. So, could it be, that warming seas leads to BIGGER ice caps, not smaller ones? I'm quite open to have my theory rubbished with good reason. Just a thought.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Stephan Schulz]

Take a glass, fill it with ice cubes, and add water until it is just about to spill over. Then wait. As the ice melts, the water level in the glass decreases.

No, it will not decrease, it will stay the same. Archimedes's principle and all that (unless the ice cubes are not freely swimming, of course, but in your setting they normally will).

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Spinalcold]

Everyone here seems to have forgotten one of the oddest priciples of H2O. When it freezes, it expands, when it melts it contracts. Simple.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[CouchP]

Ahem... Maybe the earth is cooling.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Rei]

Exactly. Of course, if the ice is supported out of water (as in, by land), it will cause the levels to rise. Thus, the arctic ice pack melting shouldn't contribute to sea level rises or drops, but the rapid increase in greenland coastal glacial action should increase levels.

Of course, there are all sorts of factors that affect the levels in a given location, and without models, it's hard to say what's really the issue. What would seem a likely cause to me is oceanic conveyor action; if southward flows increase or northward flows decrease, arctic levels should drop. The action of conveyors is driven by temperature, salinity, and Coriolis effects. The latter shouldn't be changing, but we know that the former two are.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Dare nMc]

>Even dropping a new iceberg off a glacier will technically raise the level of the oceans slightly.
not if that glacier was floating in the water. Actually as rocks on the glaciers melt through (heavier than water), or fall off, the ocean level would drop, not rise, because the glacier displaces the same amount of water per weight, but a rock sinking doesn't. (the rock floating on a glacier was displacing it's weight in water: upon falling off, the glacier rises up displacing less water than that of the rock now sinking to the bottom...)

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[goodben]

More or less correct.

The ice displace an equal mass of water. Since the ice is less dense, the "volume overrun" sticks out of the water. As the ice below the water line melts, the waterline would go down except that it's balanced by the ice sinking to compensate. The waterline is steady because the extra volume is "stored" above the water line. Ice above the waterline melting would raise the waterline, except that if this happened without the ice below melting the ice would go up to compensate.

However the level of the overall ice/water mixture goes down as the ice melts for two reasons: 1) the bulk density of the mixture is lower than pure water, so it takes up more space, 2) the ice surface isn't level--there is a lot of air between the top of the water and the top of the ice.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[ipfwadm]

Of course, things like air bubbles in the ice decrease the density of the ice and decrease the amount of water produced by melting that volume of ice,

Yes but those air bubbles reducing the density of the ice also reduce the volume of water displaced by the ice. More of the ice will be above the waterline, so even though less water results from melting the ice, there was less water displaced by the ice to begin with. Thus the air bubbles really shouldn't have an effect.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[ipfwadm]

This only holds if the ice is held under water by the ice on top of it

Shouldn't really matter, as long as it's not being held under the water by anything else. Think about it - there's no difference between two separate ice cubes stacked on top of each other, the one below pushing up on the one above vs. two ice cubes fused together to be one cube. The cube below should just push the top cube even higher above the waterline. As long as they're free-floating, as you say, and not wedged in or anything.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

If you fill a cup with ice and then fill the remaining space with water, the ice will not float freely. There is not enough water to support the weight of the ice. Therefore the water level will drop when the ice melts.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[budgenator]

no that's not what happens, because the Ice is less dense, it floats with a portion above the water level that's equal in mass to the density difference. As the ice melts, the level of the water remains constant; in the real world things are slightly more complicated because ice is rare, what is common is an ice-air composite, when water/gass mixtures freeze, bubbles of gass are often trapped in frozen ice. When ice-air composites melt, the air escapes and this can slightly reduce the water level. Artic icepack and glacial ice are normaly blue-ice which contains little gasses due to compression forces cause fractional crystalization, and artic ocean water is salt water, so with fresh pure ice melting in saltwater with variable salinity gradients, what happens is I don't have a clue what happens! Almost anybody who says they have a clue what happens, and haven't run experiment to see what happens, probably doesn't have a clue either.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[AmonRa1979]

However, you still need enough water to support the weight of the ice cubes (the water must mass at least as much as the ice cubes). If you fill the cup with ice first, there is not enough space for the amount of water necessary to float the ice cubes. In this case, the ice melting will result in a lowering of the water level.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[conJunk]

could salinity affect this too? as the ice melts, the water becomes less saline, and it's viscosity lessens?

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Cryssen]

Talk to your high school science teacher, ice floats because it's less dense than water. As water freezes into ice, it expands. Floating in the water it would displace more water than the equal amount of water in said ice cube would take up. This is why if you place a full bottle of water in the freezer it explodes. Big words don't mean you're correct.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity actually would be pushing the ice and water not pulling. Common mistake, you are forgiven.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Stephan Schulz]

you fill a cup with ice and then fill the remaining space with water, the ice will not float freely. There is not enough water to support the weight of the ice. Therefore the water level will drop when the ice melts.

How much water do you need to float the USS Enterprise? A few liters are enough, if your dock is very closely Enterprise-shaped. The same holds for the ice. If you fill the cup with ice to the brim (not above) and then fill the cup up with water, the ice will float. The only thing that might interfere is friction of the ice on the walls of the cup.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

"witchcraft or Jesus' love"

Same thing, really.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[sholden]

Is it fun being completely retarded?

Why don't you just try the damn experiment and see what happen.

Hint: there isn't the ia bottle surrounding the ice floating in the water and hence some of it can be in the air above the water - by some amazing coincidence the mass of water it displaces will happen to equal the mass of the ice... Sure "lighter than" isn't the best way to describe less dense, but it's good enough: for a given volume the ice will be lighter because it is less dense.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[WarpedMind]

Maybe it has something to do with decreasing salinity. The ice floating on top would have been without salt. As it melted, the salinity would have decreased.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[budgenator]

And we all know anybody that's smart enough to invent the internet is smart enough to know all about climatology and glaciers and stuff like that!

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[loki_tiwaz]

yes, that's because you froze the whole body of water inside a confined space

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[MickLinux]

Actually, I'll bet that you didn't do the experiment, and the guy who says the water height changes did do the experiment.

So you're reciting an article of faith (dogma based upon Archimedes' Principle), while he is using the actual scientific method.

Sometime, try it as he said. Fill the glass with ice cubes, then add water until it is just brimming.

As always, the details matter. There's a good chance some of those ice cubes aren't floating at all, but are resting a significant portion of their weight on the glass itself, at which point Archimedes' Principle doesn't apply because the preconditions aren't met... but the experiment is repeatable.

Gosh darn, I hate these fundamentalist "scientific theory" believers. I have to waste entirely too much time debunking their dogma.

(And yes, I am a Christian, and I do believe in Christ, and I do believe God is active as opposed to passive ("the watchmaker"), based upon observed phenomena. And no, that isn't scientific method there, scientific method requires a repeatable experiment. But it is a proper use of reason, nonetheless, far more proper than an emotional "I don't believe this or that, or do believe this or that because it appeared in my Science Knews Weakly".)

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[SEWilco]

How much water do you need to float the USS Enterprise?

None. The Enterprise has antigravity and repulsors.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[2012]

Maybe aliens have taken the plug out on the arctic sea bed and are just having a laugh with us.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

The centripetal force of the spinning earth makes the oceans deeper at the equator.

What? Which centripetal force does this? Gravity? The oblation of Earth is not very large, and doesn't work in your favour!

Deeper? In what sense? You mean from the centre of the planet to the mean surface? That's the oblation again.

Or do you think the centripetal attraction is towards the Earth-Moon barycentre?

I am a physicist

Uh....

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Cryssen]

so if it wasn't inside of a confined space it wouldn't expand?

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Stephan Schulz]

The Enterprise has antigravity and repulsors.

With antigravity disabled, of course. Duh! And with full gravity, the wooden decks won't stand the stress of floating her on repulsor power alone.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[jwd-oh]

Ice breaks off Glaciers not because of melting but because of the glacier advancing. When the shear forces caused by the mass of the ice sheet exceed the forces holding the ice sheet together, that is when the ice breaks off. The fact that we are seeing ice breaking says that the glaciers are working exactly as we expect.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Red Flayer]

You're right, of course -- I didn't mention that it's the side of the glass that keeps the ice from reaching it's lowest-energy configuration. Though, there are formations where the ice cannot reach its lowest-energy arrangement without a 'bump' from an external force -- some threshold has to be overcome. This is witness a lot when icebergs roll.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Red Flayer]

Of ocurse, now that I re-read my OP, notice the second condition of the argument? The one after the ampersand? Something about physical restraints on the movement of the ice?

Please include the full set of arguments when quoting.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[ipfwadm]

I didn't include it because I didn't disagree with it. I was reading your original statement as two separate conditions. But now that I re-read it, that was clearly a misinterpretation.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Nos.]

Glaciers are not on water, they are on land. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glacier

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[popeyethesailorman]

They rise until they replace exactly the volume of water they'd have once molten.

WRONG! You've misquoted Archimedes' principle. They rise until they replace exactly the weight of water they'd have once molten. Since ice is less dense than liquid water, the water level does drop as the parent stated. The weight of ice + water does not change, but the volume decreases.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Dr. Hok]

WRONG! You've misquoted Archimedes' principle. They rise until they replace exactly the weight of water they'd have once molten. Since ice is less dense than liquid water, the water level does drop as the parent stated. The weight of ice + water does not change, but the volume decreases.

You are jumping to conclusion, dear Watson. Listen to this:

I hope you'll agree that the weight of water (which we call W) replaced does have a certain volume, which we call V.

The ice cube, on the other hand, has (as you wrote) the same weight W.

Good! Now, let's assume the ice melts. What does it become? Right: Water! Whooppee! Thumbs up!

And which volume does an amount of water with the weight W have?

Right, see above: V

qed.

But you are of course right: the volume decreases. However, the mighty Lord hath taken care to reduce the volume of the ice by exactly the part that sticketh out of the water and into the heavens.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Nivag064]

Hmm...

Actually the water level _WILL_ fall - because some water will have evaporated - assuming the humidity level is less than 100%, atmopheric pressure and mean background temperatures remain constant.

Water is most dense at about 4.1 C, so if the liquid water was above 4.1 C and cooled because of the ice, this would also cause the level of the liquid surface to drop.

There are many other assumptions that need to be made; including, but not limited too assumptions about: gravitational force and chemicals disolved in the water.

Some of the wierder implied assumptions are: the nature of the dimensionality of the location not changing (one theory about the big bang is that the dimensionality of the universe changed - one dimension got much bigger), and excluding interference by one or more gods...

I believe it is impossible to list absolutely all the assumptions required. Fortunately, for practical purposes, there are a limited number of assumptions we need to be concerned about. Consider the huge explosion if New Zealand did truely become nuclear free!!! (Hint: every atom has a nucleous.)

-Nivag

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[thoughtlover]

Yes, indeed. It could be Aku is stealing our water for some nefarious reason.

That's a Samurai Jack reference for those out of the know.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

If the moon we're closer
If gravity we're being weakened

"were".

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Instine]

Not sure if you're just trolling here.... But a centripetal force is the one most people call centrifugal. When a body spins (like the earth) it forces the body outward from the centre of rotation. Thus the water of the oceans bulge at the equator. I mentioned my physics background because the original parent of the topic said he wasn't a physicist.

Anyway, gravity isn't a centripetal force. In fact centripetal force isn't even a force, it's an acceleration of mass, equivalent to a force. See Newton's Laws

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure if you're just trolling here... But a centripetal force is the one most people call centrifugal.

No, and no. Centripetal describes a force attracting a body towards the centre of rotation. Centrifugal describes a force moving a body away from a centre of rotation. Centrifugal forces are often imaginary ones; centripetal forces often are not.

When you are in a fast moving car that makes a sharp turn, you perceive a centrifugal motion, in that you move outwards from the point the car is rotating about. However in reality you were moving in a straight line, your inertia wants to keep you moving in that straight line, but the centripetal force of the tires' friction on the road is pulling you towards the centre of rotation.

When a body spins (like the earth) it forces the body outward from the centre of rotation.

Try holding a pail of water up by a string. Rotate yourself (and the pail) quickly. Let go of the rope. The pail of water travels in a straight line, following a tangent to the rotation. There is no centrifugal force holding the water in the pail, or the pail perpendicular to you as you turn in circles; it is the centripetal force of the rope and your muscles attracting the pail to the centre of rotation.

Gravity is the centripetal force attracting you to the centre of the earth, rather than allowing you to fling in a straight line out into space. However, at the scales involved, you do not perceive a false centrifugal force.

Thus the water of the oceans bulge at the equator. I mentioned my physics background because the original parent of the topic said he wasn't a physicist.

Did I misread that or did you? I thought he said:

I am a physicist

I just double-checked. That's what he said here.

and fwiw

Anyway, gravity isn't a centripetal force. In fact centripetal force isn't even a force, it's an acceleration of mass

A force causes acceleration. "Centripetal" is simply an adjective describing that force ("towards the centre").

I worry about the "physics" people here on /. Time to go get drunk.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things

[Instine]

LOL
OK You're right. I'm actually quite a good physicist, but I'm also dyslexic - getting symetrical qualities confused some times (hense my name) which is just one reason I'm not a pro physicist I worry about the "physics" people here on /. Time to go get drunk. beat you to it. :)

First guess

[Nuffsaid]

May be connected to a slowdown of the Gulf Stream?

Re:First guess

[Anonymous Coward]

That is a real and scary possibility, but if so, it should be complemented by changes seen at lower, and better-studied, latitudes. The broad level of the sea surface is mainly controlled by gravity, temperature, salinity, and tides, but there is a component based on interaction with the atmosphere (i.e. wind) and ocean currents too.

Hmmm... if Arctic bottom water is still flowing out at its regular pace, but there isn't as much freshwater input or warm water input that ordinarily balances the outflow, it could yield a net decrease in the level.

It could be a very bad sign of broader changes.

Let's hope it is something innocuous like a data analysis issue or a decadal-scale oscillation. It certainly bears further study. The article isn't exaggerating when it mentions that the Arctic Ocean is the least understood of the oceans.

Re:First guess

[ajpr]

I think in a round about way, yes.

Freshwater ice is less dense than fresh water (which is less dense than salt water). As the ice melts it occupies a smaller volume (which is of course why ice floats). The difference is a fairly significant percentage and may explain the sea level drop. This in turn is evidence of large amounts of fresh water forming in the arctic and this leads to the theory behind slowing the gulf stream down.

However most ice on oceans is from seawater: "Sea ice, formed in saltwater, accounts for about 95 percent of ice found in the oceans. Ice covers about three percent of the world's water surface." - http://pao.cnmoc.navy.mil/pao/Educate/OceanTalk2/i ndexseawater.htm

So there's really two processes going on here. One is the melting of glaciers (mostly on Greenland) which results in freshwater being deposited in the oceans (and leads to the gulf stream slowing). The other is the melting of seawater ice. I'm guessing that the seawater ice is responsible for more of the melt than the freshwater ice. This would still lower sea level as the density of seawater is obviously more than seawater ice (or the damn icebergs would sink...). So my conclusion, half arsed as it sounds, is that seawater ice is melting at a much faster rate than the freshwater ice from glaciers. I'm sure someone can do the calc to compare the density changes between both types of ice and the rate at which you need to melt one in order to counter the other.

The key point I think is that freshwater ice melting is from land based ice masses (which add to sea level) and seawater ice is from sea based ice masses (like most of the polar cap ~95% according to that web site i referenced earlier, and doesn't add to sea level - in fact it looks like it lowers sea level).

What?

[MrSquirrel]

...What?... I was THIRSTY, okay?

Re:What?

[boldtbanan]

Hmm, that was salt water. You should be dead in 3....2....1....

Re:What?

[legalize.ganja.now.]

maybe he ate some icebergs...
they keep the most pure water on our planet.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

they keep the most pure water on our planet.

Damn that makes me hanker for some bottled water. I see a product opportunity. Brilliant.

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming is occuring and I have evidence. Ever since January of this year it has been getting measurably hotter! Just check the temp trends for yourself for the past few months.

Re:What?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Northern hemisphere != the world.

Re:What?

[amliebsch]

Global warming causes all kinds of effects that may result in other places becoming cooler.

Re:What?

[IDontAgreeWithYou]

Yeah, that... and the fact that since January it's been fall and is almost winter in the southern hemishpere.

Re:What?

[koreth]

What kind of bozo modded that Funny? The term "global warming" refers to an increase in the average temperature across the entire planet. It does not mean "every last spot on the globe experiences exactly the same change in temperature at the same time." It is entirely possible -- even likely -- for some places to experience an above-average increase while other places experience a below-average increase or even a decrease. If four places warm by 1 degree and one place cools by 1 degree, the average temperature has increased by .6 degrees.

Re:What?

[irablum]

It does? "global warming" should be just that simple. but its not. "global warming" refers to anything which the current environmental crowd wants it to apply too. "Ban CFC's, they cause global warming". "Ban SUV's, they cause global warming". "Bush causes global warming". "Republicans cause global warming". "Global warming will kill us all!" "Global warming causes Hurricanes!" "Global warming will cause the seas to rise up and drown New York City" (not necessarily a bad thing to some of us Texans).

The problem is that "global warming" and "global cooling" and other climatary fluctuations have been going on since the Giant Tentacle Monster sneezed the Earth out of his right testical billions of years ago. And its not like, all of a sudden, the earth's temperature just jumped up by 5 degrees overnight causing huge super-hurricanes which prompted a new ice age (thanks Hollywood!).

To properly reply, the question has to be stated, "How do we know that the earths temperature has changed?" Your argument of four places warming by 1 degree and one place cools by 1 degree doesn't make sense. There are billions of square miles on the surface of the earth. Measureing the ground temperature, and temperature at varous altitudes of each of these places is impossible.

So, "prove" that the earth is warming. (I know, "you" aren't the one who's claiming that it is.)

Ira

Re:What?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Pigbearman. I'm totally serial.

Re:What?

[sckeener]

...What?... I was THIRSTY, okay?

Dang that makes me a geek....first thing that popped into my head was Thor chalenged by giants to drain a mug that happened to be linked to the ocean...the Giants were shocked when Thor did lower the mug an inch or so....

Re:What?

[amliebsch]

It's moderated "Funny" because I am taking an explanation commonly offered by global warming proponents as to why some areas do not show warming trends and using it to explain why it gets colder in the Southern Hemisphere's winter season.

Re:What?

[radtea]

Measureing the ground temperature, and temperature at varous altitudes of each of these places is impossible.

There are well-known satellite measurements that do exactly this. There are issues with the analysis of these data, but a growing consensus within the scientific community that suggests a warming o 0.1 to 0.15 C per decade, if memory serves.

Ice core data are also good aggregate measures of global atmospheric temperature, and they also indicate a significant global warming trend over the past few decades.

You can find more about these things via Google.

However, it is worth noting that the temperature of a mixed medium is a lousy proxy for the heat content, which is what really matters. You can add heat to the atmosphere without increasing its temperature--the added heat may instead appear as a change in moisture content. The change in total atmospheric enthalpy is due to both increases in temperature and changes in heat capacity. Modern measures of climate change should be focussed on changes in atmospheric (and ocean) heat content. Ocean heat content is more closely correlated with ocean temperature because it is a simpler medium.

Finally, you make a comment to the effect that it's not like climate change has been obvious and dramatic. This is true. But in the geographically recent past there have been very large changes in hemispheric, if not global, climate that have taken at most a few decades to occur. Google "younger dryas" for more info.

Of course...

[evileyetmc]

There has been periodic change in water levels for thousands, if not millions of years. While it may seem alarming, and probably does have a large effect on our climate, it is not just CO2 emissions to blame. I'm sure the tectonic plates shifting (I'm no geologist) and various other natural phenomena contribute a significant amount to the change in the earth's water level, just like they have for a long time before we were around.

Re:Of course...

[sfjoe]

OK, that's a reasonable opinion to hold. But why would we accept your unsubstantiated opinion against the consensus opinion of people who do not about climate?

Re:Of course...

[cluckshot]

To weigh in on this issue is to beg to get moderated out of existence. I am trying to discuss real science and not the phoney baloney handed out in American Physics Classes. Please if you disagree, just do it don't try to mod this down. Get a life if you cannot stand scientific discussion.

There is a growing body of evidence that the whole universe does not work the way that we were taught. In fact the "Physics" accepted generally is becoming unable to sustain itself in the face of evidence that it is just wrong. If fails in nearly every point to predict accurately and other models do predict accurately. There is a model which is the Plasma Universe model that works well. It predicts things like we are seeing very well. It says that Gravity is an insigificant force being outweighed by the EM force by 10^39. It even suggests that Gravity is no force at all but is merely a side product of the EM field. This model has predicted accurately every major new observation in the solar system in recent years. The Relativity and Gravity model has flunked the test of matching reality.

This new model arises out of the sciences and tools used by the IEEE types around the world. Their stuff works. They just met to discuss such things at ICOPS

The level of oceans has to do with electrostatic charges associated with cosmic physics and the makeup of the earth. This is related to why comets break up in deep space too far from the sun to have been so. It also makes the earth expand radiacally. By the evidence from NOAA the earth has expanded by 55% gaining mass from the energy of this process creating matter within the earth in the period in which the oceans came into being. The evidence may be seen in detail in cute videos or discussed here

When you realize that the ocean and the earth were made insitu and the process is on going at this time, you will tend to view the results of any report quite differently. I know this will upset a lot of people a whole lot. Just about every apple cart in town is going to get tilted over by this stuff. Wake up. The people who have been teaching you for so long are wrong.

Re:Of course...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is related to why comets break up in deep space too far from the sun to have been so

According to my observations, comets break up when they approach a massive object because there is "dust" around the object. Meteors appear much the same way as they enter our atmosphere.

There is tons of dust surrounding just about everything moon size and up. It causes vibrations in the object when the speed is increasing and the object is encountering more resistence. Comets are unstable enough as it is, and along with this increase in friction comes heat, expanding gases and explosions.

Has that been ruled out here?

Re:Of course...

[JohnWiney]

You are right that the current physics is incorrect. Barring divine revelation, there will never be a provably correct theory. However, current theories are provably accurate to within at least eight significant digits, so they are easily sufficient for the purposes of the current subject.

Re:Of course...

[susano_otter]

But why would we accept your unsubstantiated opinion against the consensus opinion of people who do not about climate?

Are these the same people who are baffled by the falling Arctic Sea level?

Why should we trust the consensus opinion of these people, when there's obviously still so much about the global climate they just don't understand yet?

Re:Of course...

[budgenator]

you know if I got a shove and dug done about a thousand feet into the ground I'd hit salt, right under where I live. Where'd that salt come from, the answer is the ocean, either the sea level went down or the ground rose up and a big pocket of the ocean got cut-off from the rest of the sea and the water evaporated, leaving the salt behind. Now I'm about 500feet above our present sea level. Finding these salt deposits is pretty easy, just find an oil or gas well and chances are pretty good the well drilled through a salt dome to get to the oil.

Not a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

The arctic icepack is melting at an accelerated rate, due to global warming. Once the ice is gone, it is no longer displacing so much water, and so sea levels drop.

Re:Not a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, that was the stupidest thing I've ever read...how did you make it through school?

Read this, grasshopper: http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae552 .cfm

Re:Not a surprise

[mypalmike]

And from that same article, adding a little thought of your own, you would see that if the ice were originally sitting on the sea floor, and it began to melt, the sea level would indeed decrease. This would be the case with large masses of ice and/or ice with large amounts of debris either mixed in or on top of it.

Re:Not a surprise

[bullsbarry]

Take a glass and fill it with ice. Then add water until it reaches the brim of the glass. Let the ice melt. What happens?

Note to naysayers: This is only valid if the only ice that melts is currently in the water. If the ice is on land, then the sea level should rise.

Re:Not a surprise

[1ucius]

What happens when the water in the glass rises above 39F (or what ever temp the max density is)?

Re:Not a surprise

[ScottLindner]

Evaporation?

It is a scientific fact that ice is less dense than water due to the hydrogen bonds and shape of the molecule. This is why ice floats on water. I'm agreeing with you by the way. My evaporation comment was a joke.. and to point out a potential flaw in the test.

It never occurred to me that the density of water in liquid or ice form would be enougn to show a difference in the ocean levels. I have always assumed there is so much more ice above the water level that the oceans would certainly rise if the polar caps were to melt completely.

Hmm.. I wonder. Does this mean that faster global warming could have prevented the Katrina issues? I mean... if we melt off the caps and the ocean levels drop.. the flooding in New Orleans may have never happened! :-)

Re:Not a surprise

[goodben]

The maximum density of water of any phase is 4 degrees C (corresponds to 39 degrees F), however, the minimum liquid phase density is still higher than the maximum solid phase density (at an reasonable ice temperature anyway).

Re:Not a surprise

[theelectron]

I drink it!

Re:Not a surprise

[mypalmike]

Take a glass and fill it halfway with ice. Then cover the ice with rocks. Then add water until it reaches the rim of the glass. Let the ice melt. What happens?

Re:Not a surprise

[loki_tiwaz]

I would just like to point out that a factor that has never been discussed as far as i know about the global warming business is that warming increases evaporation, and evaporated water stores more heat than non-evaporated. Therefore if there is an average observable rise of 1 degree of atmospheric temperatures, this means that there's probably another degree hidden in the increased atmospheric water (and as i've been repeating, hydrocarbon burning produces quite a lot of water by itself). It seems more likely to me that the heavy weather we are now seeing is a cyclic phenomenon which is being exacerbated by our increasing the atmospheric density and latent heat levels.

Is this going to cause massive global catastrophe? Well, probably, but these things happen, it's normal. What is at issue is that we humans, by not finding better ways to make energy than burning stores of hydrocarbons, are adding to this cyclic change and it may just be the straw that broke the camels back, so instead of having a massive volcanic/seismic/disease/war cataclysm, we might be just having a couple of centuries of hot weather, were we not doing this.

Can you say which way things would go were we not doing our bit to make it worse? Unfortunately not. However, it can be stated with great certainty that our contribution is adding to the problem.

Until scientists (or is it the owners of energy producing monopolies stopping this) find a direct route to capture gravitational energy at high efficiency, the human contribution to climate change will just get worse as our population increases. The way I see it, as Stephen Hawking astutely observed, we need to develop the capability to get off this big ol' rock and wander the stars. If we are not doing this, then we are no better than the dinosaurs and one way or another nature will slay us and have another go at producing an intelligent species.

Re:Not a surprise

[dublin]

Of course, this is a red herring, because ice isn't held down by rocks - instead, it floats freely. Because the system is in static equilibrium to start with (and the ice floats submerged to the level equivalent to its weight in water), it's also in equilibrium after melting, with a net change of exactly zero in the water level. (The volume goes down, but the "excess" volume was above the surface to start with, and is now level with the surface, thus no change.)

Anyway, this reminds me of a question on a quiz from college:

You and a big rock are floating in a rowboat in the middle of a lake. You throw the rock overboard. What happens to the level of the lake?

The correct answer is that it goes down, which I jokingly extrapolated in my answer to state that if you threw enough rocks out, you could drain the lake. My prof got a kick out of that one... :-)

Gets you Al Gore!

[the_back_sasser]

Well, amid the massive body of supporting evidence, this had disproved global warming in my mind.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist. That's how science works, you start assuming what you've always assumed and the new theories must be proven.

Personally, I've never cared much about this 'Global Warming' because even the alarmists (like Greenpeace and Gore) give incredibly non-frightening information. They say we're warming up at an unprecedented level, but the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.

But the biggest problem in proving 'Global Warming' is not conflicting evidence like this article. It's not the fact that the same theories and reasoning and 'researchers' told us that we were headed for an ice-age thirty years ago.

It's the fact that even non-scientifically minded people can poke holes in the alarmists' theories. 'Global Warming is caused by humans' - how? How do we know that? Do cars give off a unique chemical that we can see directly makes the Earth warmer? 'Global Warming has caused more natural disasters than any previous year and it will only get worse' - really? I don't see how one degree could possibly cause more hurricanes, I mean, perhaps there are other causes to such a development. 'Global Warming will destroy civilisation' - uh, perhaps not Nervous Joe.

Anyone, anyone, looking even half logically at this 'Global Warming' hype can see through it.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[ceejayoz]

You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.

There is a scientific consensus that it exists. The controversy is over how much humans speed it up.

the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years. One degree? For the largest polluting, greatest industrial achievements in the history of man? That sounds pretty damn stable to me.

You do realize how much energy it takes to raise an entire planet by a degree, right? Sure, one degree doesn't seem like much... but to an extraordinarily balanced system, it's a big deal.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Theaetetus]

You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist. That's how science works, you start assuming what you've always assumed and the new theories must be proven.

No, that's not how science works. Not at all.

1. You make an observation: "Annual global average temperatures are rising more over the past hundred years than the previous several hundred years."
2. You make a hypothesis: "This is normal fluctuation."
3. You test the hypothesis: "If this is normal, why are they rising more in the recent period than in the previous one? Ergo, this doesn't seem to be normal."
4. You revise the hypothesis: "This is abnormal fluctuation, caused by human intervention."
5. You reexamine the data: "The rate seems to be increasing more since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Pollution increased at that time."
6. You again revise the hypothesis: "This is abnormal fluctuation, caused by increased pollution."
7. You again test: "Can pollution cause warming of a contained system? Yes."

Etc. Nothing in science is ever "proven". Things are observed, and hypotheses that are wrong are ruled out. So, since the data points to an increased warming trend, "global warming" is already a fact. The science is figuring out what it means and why.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

"There is a scientific consensus that it exists. "
There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat. There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.
Remember, it's not 'who' says it, it's 'wha's being said'.


And one degree isn't much. Disregarding that fact that there's no reason to think that temperatures won't go down, disregarding the fact that there's no reason to think that 'surface temperature readings' can be held with much validity over such a short timeframe, disregarding the fact that 50 years ago these same kinds of figures would indicate that the planet is cooling... I lost my train of thought - but hopefully I've derailed he 'Global Warming express' too.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[pclminion]

You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist.

Bullshit, things don't work that way. To generalize your argument, you're saying that if we put forth a hypothesis A, then the burden of proof is to prove A. But we can just as easily construct a hypothesis B, which is the opposite of hypothesis A, and now you would say that the burden of proof is to prove B, that is, to prove not A. So in fact, your assertion that global warming is "false until proven true" is clearly based on your own personal biases. We could just as easily say that there is a theory of "Lack of Global Warming" and then you would assert that it is "true until proven false." Can you not see how your personal opinions are at the root of this?

The real truth is, there is no "burden of proof" in science. If you have studied any scientific philosophical thought, you would know that science does not seek provable truth. There is only a progressive movement toward better and better theories. The "world of ice" theories were merely an earlier step in that progression.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[ceejayoz]

There was a scientific consensus that the Earth was flat.

A common myth. Even the ancient Greeks knew it wasn't true, though.

There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.

I think we're working off a different definition of "science" here.

disregarding the fact that 50 years ago these same kinds of figures would indicate that the planet is cooling...

Ooh, more myths. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[0xABADC0DA]

First of all there was not scientific consensus for any of those straw-man arguments you mention. Science has know the world wasn't flat for thousands of years and any confusion over that is due to religion and stupidity; just check the wikipedia article. Religion and stupidity also were the culprits in blacks being supposedly 'inferior' (as opposed to the more accurate 'slightly different'). And it's religion and stupidity that said Iraq had WMDs.

Second, get your facts straight. It's 1 degree celsius... just look at the damned graph... from -0.5 to .5 celsius is 1 degree. You reasoning is sound, but your conclusions are wrong because the so-called facts you are starting from are wrong. When this happens to an otherwise smart person there is one word for it: denial.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[phantomlord]

# You test the hypothesis: "If this is normal, why are they rising more in the recent period than in the previous one? Ergo, this doesn't seem to be normal."
# You revise the hypothesis: "This is abnormal fluctuation, caused by human intervention."
# You reexamine the data: "The rate seems to be increasing more since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. Pollution increased at that time."

define "period". Is a period 200 years? 2,000? 200,000? Is a 200 year period a large enough sample to draw conclusive evidence that it isn't normal fluctuation in a planet that is billions of years old? Was it human pollution that warmed the earth during the last ice age? Are there non-human factors which can cause climate change and if so, why immediately theorize that it must be human activity that is doing it? Because the sample period is so small? Because our we have an inflated sense of self-importance?

Lets sample the temperature of the ground around a volcano for two weeks. On day 7, the villagers surrounding dig a well. On day 9, suddenly the volcano erupts and the ground temperature goes up exponentially as the magma flows over it. The volcano was perfectly fine until those pesky humans dug that well. Why, seeing as everything was fine up until digging that well, the hole the villagers put in the ground was obviously responsible for a change in the geological pressure, causing the volcano to erupt.

Is the earth warmer today than it was 100 years ago? Sure, I'll make the assumption that the scientists are right and it is. Does a one degree fluctuation in 100 years matter? Certainly if you only consider those 100 years. How does a one degree fluctuation in 100 years compare to a larger scale such as the last 10,000 years, 100,000 years, 1,000,000 years? How fast did the temperature change when the glaciers of the last ice age retreated? Was man responsible for that? Obviously, they weren't, so what caused it to happen? Could those same principles be affecting climate today?

When you already have the result you're looking for, it's easy to overlook other factors in science. We know that natural planetary activity outside of human activity causes climate change. Are our models good enough to predict pre-civilization climate change? If not, why immediately jump to the conclusion that it is human activity which is causing climate change today unless that is the conclusion you're looking for?

People pointed to the scientist in this article being paid by Exxon and thus couldn't be trusted. Where do the scientists who are on the "humans are responsible for climate change" get their funding? Government grants, environmental cause groups, etc... How do they ensure they get the grants? By being as alarmist as possible so that it seems like money needs to be thrown at the problem to find a solution now. "Exxon funds science which promotes the policies they want" is no different than "Greenpeace funds science which promotes the policies they want." In the former case, they do it to remove pressure for them to change their business practices to increase profitability and in the latter case, they do it so they can get more people to donate to their coffers, increase their exposure, etc. Why should one side be attacked for their funding source and not the other?

There is very little impartiality or pure study from what I see in the climatology universe. Everyone finds the evidence to support the conclusion of the view they already hold, just like when when Gartner publishes a dstudy they did on behalf of MS. One side chooses the exact variables they want to control and the other side goes "the study is invalid because you deliberately picked the variables that would provide the result you wanted." That doesn't mean there isn't some truth in the study but it does mean that not enough was taken into consideration for it to be the general case. Ergo, yes, human activity MAY have some part in global warming bu

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[tpjunkie]

Do cars give off a unique chemical that we can see directly makes the Earth warmer?

Errm, yes, i's called carbon dioxide, and it does wonders for making venus warmer.

Think about it this way: 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the land and all that, most paleontologists will agree that the climate of earth was much warmer than it is today, and that the concentration of CO2 in the air was much higher. Now, plants, as is well known, sequester CO2 from the air in the form of glucose and other complex carbohydrates, some of which is taken up by animals, which consume them. Another well known fact is that the vast supplies of oil which humans have been combusting for the past 150 years were formed from the remains of the same plants and animals which had sequestered all this carbon. Finally, when you take into account the fact that combustion of hydrocarbons gives you water and carbon dioxide as end products, it's not exactly rocket science to figure out that burning all the oil we can drill will probably result in a trend towards the climate becoming more similar to the way it was back when the carbon in that oil existed as CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[tcphll]

Very well put, and I think you had it spot on with our "inflated sense of self-importance". I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Carbon dioxide hardly qualifies as a chemical "unique" to cars. Any school-age child can tell you that every creature on the planet naturally expels CO2 when they breathe. I'm sure other people can think of many other natural sources of CO2 besides car engines.

Bottom line is that the amount of CO2 released by cars pales in comparison to the amount naturally released by the planet itself (volcanoes, for example.) While I'm sure burning fossil fuels doesn't help the global warming situation any, there is little to support a hypothesis that it is the major cause behind it. And as pointed out by many others, the global average temperature is just that... an average. It naturally varies on both sides, from the current warm conditions (what we consider "normal") to ice age conditions (what would have been considered "normal" 500,000 years ago, long before the internal combustion engine.)

Personally, I think we should be more concerned with all the other problems, environmental and political, that can be directly attributed to oil (destruction of wildlife habitat, water contamination, smog, wars, etc.) than with it's release of CO2 and it's impact on global warming. Many of those issues are self-evident, unlike the global warming theory. But that's another topic.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Hittite Creosote]

It's not the fact that the same theories and reasoning and 'researchers' told us that we were headed for an ice-age thirty years ago.

That's not a fact, it's a myth.

1974 National Science Board:

Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path. . .

In short, in the 1970s, they were questioning whether human activity would show a larger effect than what they suspected may be the natural trend at the time. The media decided to present half the story. The theory of global warming has been around since the 19th century (Svante Arrhenius). Scientists were not, in any way, shape or form in the 1970s in an overall consensus that global cooling was occuring - the majority were of the view that they didn't know what was going to happen. The 1970s global cooling hype is a favourite straw man of the anti-global warming theory brigade.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Jhon]

Because our we have an inflated sense of self-importance?

We better HOPE we can effect the climate. Because if we can't, we're doomed to mass starvation during the next ice age/tropical periods. A minor shift it weather patterns could devastate current agricultural zones.

We've GOT to effect the climate. We BETTER be "self-important".

The climate WILL change. It is a certainty.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[RonTheHurler]

And therein lies the problem with pure logic.

My 5 year old daughter broke a window while no one was looking. She wanted to avoid being punished, so when I asked her what happened, she told me a lion had jumped through the window and that's how it was broken.

On pressing her for details, I remembered that we had watched a TV show where a lion jumped through a hoop in a circus act. She also knows that birds occasionally fly into the windows- we've had to clean up the carcasses and go through that explanation several times. But, using pure logic, and knowing that no one was here to see otherwise, she concluded that it was logical to tell me that a lion was walking by and jumped through the window because he didn't know the window was closed. Apparently he jumped in because he wanted a drink of water from our toilet- like the dogs. It was beautiful logic coming from a 5 year old! But, as you can see, what you don't know can truly ruin your day when it comes to haphazardly applied logic.

One degree Farhenheit, multiplied by the volume of the entire atmosphere, is an incredible amount of heat energy. All that extra energy sloshing around can make some pretty nasty storms, and it can shift global rainfall patterns too. Remember Etheopia in the 1980s? Where is your food grown? Are you prepared to get it from somewhere else?

That chemical you asked about- how's this logic:
1. We burn a measureable amount of fossil fuel each year.
2. It's well known how much CO2 that produces.
3. We know how much CO2 we're putting in the air.
4. We know how much the atmospheric CO2 has been rising over the last 100 years, and there is a correlation.
5. We know that CO2, among other things, traps heat.
6. New research is showing that the earth should have trapped much more heat than it has, but, atmoshperic particulates (smog, smoke, con trails, etc.) are blocking some of the sun's energy- as much as 10% it seems. That's why we cooled between 1940 and 1980, but now the CO2 heat-trap is catching up. IF we clean up our act in terms of particle pollution, we could actually increase the rate of global warming without any new CO2 going into the air.
7. Cars and trucks are not the biggest source of CO2, it's the coal fired electric generating plants. While they're still in business, those silly little hybrid vehicles are entirely pointless.
8. Another chemical marker produced by coal fired power plants is mercury. Consumer Reports has advised, based on EPA data, that pregnant women should NOT eat tuna in any form due to concentrated mercury poisining.
How's that for a chemical marker?

Pure logic, without empirical observations and testable hypothesis, is little better than religion.

In other words, it's equally succeptible to abuses by arrogance and ego.

-----------

Keep my family fed, visit http://www.rlt.com/ today!

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, a lion! That's almost as good as a pony. Did you keep it?

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[tpjunkie]

Obviously the ammount of CO2 released by cars in comparison to the rest of the co2 released through other human induced combustion is very small; however the first part of my comment is somewhat facetious and is in reference to the parent's comment, which seemed to be making the point that human use of fossil fuels are having no impact.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[drwho]

Wow! That's a pretty good summary of the problems with discerning Global Warming. It's a problem with science in general, as well. There's a real emotional/group-think factor in the scientific community that goes a lot deeper than most people are willing to admit. Just try mentioning 'abiogenesis' at a party of scientists and see if you are still invited to future ones. Around here in Massachusetts, it's tantamount to showing up in KKK robes. There's a few prominent figures who have spoken against the orthodoxy in the past, but these are quickly ground to bits by the popular press, and often the scientific press as well. I wonder if there will ever be a return to the basic honesty that made for such greate scientific progress in the past.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[nelsonal]

I dunno about global trends but in the US transportation is about half of fossil fuel usage.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[sponglish]

No, that's not how science works. Not at all. You make an observation: "Annual global average temperatures are rising more over the past hundred years than the previous several hundred years."

a. Somebody smacks you on the top of the head and says "what are you doing drawing conclusions on global climate from just a couple hundred years of data?!!" Over millennia, the Earth has been hotter and colder than the present temps (for ex: the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period), which likely means we're just passing from cold to hot in yet another cycle. None of the previous cycles appear to have been affected by CO2 levels, by the way.

b. Upon review of your data it turns out that you made one critical error in statistics after another so that your final observations are meaningless (yes Mann, I'm looking at you and your "hockeystick")

c. NASA publishes data that indicates: the Sun has been unusually active over the period you're measuring, Mars is also undergoing global warming and so is Pluto. Obviously AGW cannot be responsible for climate change on other planets.

These tend to screw up the whole mankind-is-responsible-for-global-warming meme. Not arguing that climate change isn't occurring you understand, just that we're not responsible for it.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Theaetetus]

These tend to screw up the whole mankind-is-responsible-for-global-warming meme. Not arguing that climate change isn't occurring you understand, just that we're not responsible for it.

Sorry, misunderstanding - I wasn't arguing whether we're responsible or not... I was arguing with GP's point that science is done by assuming a negative, then trying to prove a positive, which is exactly backwards.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Alaska Jack]

A agree with you about the degree thing. But I've got news for you -- your post doesn't exactly come across as the epitome of calm, scientific thinking.

Why don't you try knocking the hyperventilation down a few notches. To name just one example, the abolitionists (and here I assume you are talking about slavery in the U.S.) were profoundly motivated by religious arguments, almost to a person. The slavers, in contrast, were motivated mostly by economics. Also, as the NIS pointed out, the consensus of the range of U.S. intelligence agencies (and those of pretty much every other country) was that Saddam had WMDs. Are you seriously suggesting that all the career CIA and NSA bureaucrats who produced the report were blinded by religion?

My neighbor is very religious. Her daughter has a red bike. Are those facts related? I guess they could be, but simply asserting it is so would make me sound somewhat silly, wouldn't it? Especially if I did so in the context of a post blasting someone else for scientific inaccuracy.

    - AJ

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[kencurry]

Quick primer on hypothesis testing:

A good scientist states his/her hypothesis such that observations could prove it false. (has to do with power of observations)

Wrong:
  "A is not equal to B"

This is hard to challenge because to prove it false, you have to show that A really equals B(given experimental error etc.)

right:

"A is equal to B" null hypothesis

This is easy to prove false (if it really is false), otherwise you accept the alternative hypothesis, which is that there is insufficient data to reject it as false.

Note that this never really equates to PROVING it TRUE. Therefore, science NEVER PROVES anything to be true, but science often can prove things to be false. If an hypothesis has been challenged many times by many scientists, and never proven false, then the community tends to elevate the hypothesis to a theory. Which is never to be confused with a fact.

class dismissed.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not correct. About half of US OIL usage is consumed by transportation. But fossil fuel use includes natural gas and coal too. Quite a proportion of oil is used in heating (fuel oil) and for the production of plastics and the like and as chemical feed stocks.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Control Group]

How sure of that are you? Not that I can be arsed to check, but I'm reasonably certain the last DOE stats I saw indicated that roughly half of US oil consumption is accounted for my burning gasoline/diesel. But half of the US' oil consumption is a far cry from half of the US' fossil fuel consumption, which would include the enormous quantities of coal devoted to generating power, the not insignificant amount of natural gas devoted to heating buildings, as well as the oil used for non-combustion purposes. There are other notable places that fossil fuels get used, but I'd guess those are the big ones.

Anyway, the point is, I'm pretty sure the gasoline/diesel we burn in this country isn't anywhere close to accounting for half our total fossil fuel usage.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just try mentioning 'abiogenesis' at a party of scientists and see if you are still invited to future ones. Around here in Massachusetts, it's tantamount to showing up in KKK robes.

There's your problem. Everyone knows that scientists don't have good parties. Now engineers, on the other hand...

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Annual global average temperatures are rising more over the past hundred years than the previous several hundred years.

Heh. The "previous several hundred years"... That's a classic understatement.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

There was a scientific consensus that Black people were inferior to White people. There was a scientific consensus that Iraq had WMDs.

I think we're working off a different definition of "science" here.

The guy who discovered climate change (in the form of ice ages) was Louis Agassiz. He also had some racist views which nowadays would be considered peculiar, and quite repugnant. A sample:

Whites and blacks may multiply together, but their offspring is never either white or black; it is always mulatto. It is a half-breed, and shares all the peculiarities of half-breeds, among whose most important characteristics is their sterility, or at least their reduced fecundity. This shows the connection to be contrary to the normal state of the races, as it is contrary to the preservation of species in the animal kingdom. . .Far from presenting to me a natural solution of our difficulties, the idea of amalgamation is most repugnant to my feelings. It is now the foundation of some of the most ill-advised schemes. But wherever it is practiced, amalgamation among different races produces shades of population, the social position of which can never be regular and settled. From a physiological point of view, it is sound policy to put every possible obstacle to the crossing of the races, and the increase of half-breeds. It is unnatural, as shown by their very constitution, their sickly physique, and their impaired fecundity. It is immoral and destructive of social equality as it creates unnatural relations and multiplies the differences among members of the same community in a wrong direction.

Louis Agassiz: His Life and Correspondence by Agassiz and Agassiz

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

Your explaination is rather slipshod - but you've got the right idea.

Nothing in science is ever "proven". Things are observed, and hypotheses that are wrong are ruled out.
Right!

So, since the data points to an increased warming trend...
... we should look for more data? ... we should consider the idea of Global Warming but continue to re-examine it? ...we should affirm that this theory is the most likely, but continue to remind people that nothing is 'fact'?

..."global warming" is already a fact.
Eh? Kinda did a 180 there. Didn't you just say that nothing is ever proven? Yeah I think you did. Yup, right up there, word for word.

The science is figuring out what it means and why.
Oh god... No. That's not 'science', that's 'junk science'. You were doing so well: create hypothesis, test hypothesis, redefine hypothesis due to new data, never say it's 'fact'... then you actually say it's a 'fact' and you say science should work towards proving a theory instead of simply searching for accurate data.

And I had such high hopes for you.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

The climate WILL change, whether we're here or not. Remember this planet goes through a continuous cycle of ice-ages and warming trends. Ask any geologist about inner-Earth temperatures over the last hundred thousand years.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

What? Are you licking toads? Of course the burden of proof is on the new hypothesis, that's not science that's just logic.

Try this on for size. New theory: Global Warming is caused by lack of pirates. Now, evidence indicates that over the last few hundred years the temperature has gone up and the number of pirates have gone down.

Heh, and because there's no 'burden of proof' I don't have to prove anything for this to be 'science'. Good job.



Remember kids, you can't just say shit without backing it up.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

Uh, your daughter (though probobly cute as a button) isn't using logic - she's lying. Logic would dictate that if there's no lion around, you can't prove that a lion did it. And if lions don't frequent the area, there's no reason to believe a lion's involved at all.

And it's well known that CO2 was even higher than it is now during tha last ice age. So you can't just say 'CO2 makes it warmer' there's more to it than that.

The point is that even a bot of logic is all it takes to show these alarmist theories to be false.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[DesireCampbell]

My point here was that 'consensus' among scientist is not the be-all end-all of science. Science is not a democracy. 'Consensus' is not something a scientist should use to prove his point, usually you'd use 'facts' and 'data'.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Maximilio]

You don't need to be proven that Global Warming doesn't exist, you should force people to prove it does exist. That's how science works, you start assuming what you've always assumed and the new theories must be proven.

OK. You're asking the wrong question. Global Warming isn't a thing that may or may not exist. It's a phenomenon, whose occurrance is already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The question (which isn't really a question) is, is it happening here and now?

The "already proven" part of GW, the statement that greenhouse gases trap heat and cause a feedback cycle that leads a climate system as a whole to run away to some higher temperature is in stark and indisputable evidence on the nearby planet Venus. It's more than just being closer to the Sun -- even on the night side of Venus, where night lasts for months, it's 800 degrees plus.

The question is, are we in danger of modestly displacing our own climate in the here and now? And the answer (except from a few paid shills, who I suspect the parent article is one of) is a resounding yes.

Personally, I've never cared much about this 'Global Warming' because even the alarmists (like Greenpeace and Gore) give incredibly non-frightening information. They say we're warming up at an unprecedented level, but the worst figures I've seen say we've increase one degree Fahrenheit in the last two-hundred years.

That's because you don't understand what you're talking about. Your credibility on this issue is plumetting already. Global temperatures don't fluctuate very rapidly. When they do, we observe in the historical record coincident events like mass extinctions.

But the biggest problem in proving 'Global Warming' is not conflicting evidence like this article. It's not the fact that the same theories and reasoning and 'researchers' told us that we were headed for an ice-age thirty years ago.

Please, since you're so well-read, can we see what articles you're talking about? Get dates on them, too.

Even if you do, however, it's irrelevant. Science changes because we learn more. Thirty years ago, we did not understand certain things. That we didn't then and do now, and that our understanding of thirty years ago conflicts with our understanding of now does not mean there's a mutual equivalence of doubt. Something like five times the amount of scientific information has been gathered by the human species in the last thirty years than had been gathered in all of human history previous. I believe our most recent recorded rate of information doubling was every seven years. Is that too complicated for you to understand?

It's the fact that even non-scientifically minded people can poke holes in the alarmists' theories. 'Global Warming is caused by humans' - how? How do we know that? Do cars give off a unique chemical that we can see directly makes the Earth warmer?

It's amazing how stupid people can be. Look up carbon dioxide.

Warming has caused more natural disasters than any previous year and it will only get worse' - really? I don't see how one degree could possibly cause more hurricanes, I mean, perhaps there are other causes to such a development. 'Global Warming will destroy civilisation' - uh, perhaps not Nervous Joe.

So, you're not dealing with Katrina refugees, I see. Must be nice to be wherever you are, Smartass Pollyanna. I'm not bothering you with a fact-based explanation of how warmer water increases hurricane energy because you plainly aren't intelligent enough to understand it, because if you were you'd have absorbed it at least once during the thousands of times that explanation has been published in the last year or so.

Anyone, anyone, looking even half logically at this 'Global Warming' hype can see through it.

I'm starting to suspect, as I see right through you, that you're a shill trying to pump brain-dead talking points into the conversation. I'll be happy to match my logical wits against yours any time. Be prepared to be logically beaten to a rhetorical pulp.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzt. Wrong. You claim that religion and stupidity were the culprits in blacks being thought of as inferior. That's dead wrong. The Bible teaches that we are all one blood (Acts 17:26). It also teaches that the earth is a sphere.

Look instead for the roots of racism and the ideas of racial superiority to Darwin. The full title of his most famous work is "The origin of species by means of natural selection; or, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life". Aborigines in Australia were slaughtered because they were considered to be evolutionarily inferior.

I don't know where you got religion saying Iraq had WMD's; Shrub dreamed that up in his delusional thoughts. He's no more a Christian than Saddam.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[cvdwl]

Bzzt, wrong. Antarctic ice cores show that CO2 levels are higher now than any time in the last 650Kyr, during which time a NUMBER of ice ages have taken place.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[ceejayoz]

They have the facts and data - that's what scientific consensus is generally based upon. Consensus just comes in handy when it's time to drive the concept into slightly less hardheaded skulls than yours.

Science may not be a democracy, but without peer review it'd be nothing. Global warming has certainly survived peer review.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[ceejayoz]

The Bible teaches that we are all one blood (Acts 17:26).

Blacks were considered subhuman by many, so Genesis 1:26 would up being a more popular verse.

It also teaches that the earth is a sphere.

Not really, unless you confuse 'circle' for 'sphere' and ignore a bunch of other passages.

Look instead for the roots of racism and the ideas of racial superiority to Darwin. The full title of his most famous work is "The origin of species by means of natural selection; or, The preservation of favored races in the struggle for life".

Race, in the 1850s, was used to describe animal populations as well as subsets of humanity.

Aborigines in Australia were slaughtered because they were considered to be evolutionarily inferior.

They were slaughtered on a pretext. The imperial Europeans had no issues with killing humans, white, black, or any other skin colour. It isn't as if the world was racism-free before evolution was described or something.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[nelsonal]

That's what I get for speaking before looking. You are both very correct. Via the most recent EIA review transportion accounts for about 27% of total US energy consumption. Fossil fuels provide about 85% of our energy consumed, and transportation is about 31% of our fossil fuel consumption as measured by BTUs.
I was incorrectly recalling that transportation was about half of our petroleum use or a similar statistic.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[pclminion]

You misunderstand the meaning of "burden of proof." I'm not saying hypotheses need not be tested. I'm talking about the concept of "innocent until proven guilty." The meaning of "burden of proof" in a legal sense. Because any hypothesis can, in concept, be negated, there is no reason to prefer an assumption of validity over an assumption of invalidity. The only real criterion is that the hypothesis be falsifiable.

If you've inferred my opinion on the matter from any of the preceding, you're imagining things.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[0xABADC0DA]

And why are you discussing everything but the evidence of global climate change? You've been suckered by the straw-man agrument into unrelated issues, just like the original poster intended.

As I said before, religion and stupidity.

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[ArtStone]

The atmosphere of Mars is 95.32% carbon dioxide.

Why is Mars not a warm planet?

http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

For extra credit, does the measurable increase in ocean temperature mean that the oceans are less able to absorb CO2 or do the oceans start releasing sequestered CO2? Are we positive that the Global Warming Theory doesn't have cause and effect confused? Or is it a positive feedback cycle that is about to explode out of control?

Re:Gets you Al Gore!

[Theaetetus]

"..."global warming" is already a fact."
Eh? Kinda did a 180 there. Didn't you just say that nothing is ever proven? Yeah I think you did. Yup, right up there, word for word.

"The science is figuring out what it means and why."
Oh god... No. That's not 'science', that's 'junk science'.

You're reading too much into the phrase. Look - some force holds you to the ground on earth... that's fact. "Gravity" is then the theory. The data show an increased warming trend in temperatures... that's fact, too - "global warming" with a small g and small w. "Global Warming", the theory that the increase is caused by human intervention, is not proven.

Centrifugal Force?

[space_biker]

If there were a larger mass of water from melting, wouldn't more of it pile up at the equator due to centrifugal force?

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[Nos.]

But why would the levels at the artic drop more? If you fill a bowl 1/2 full with water and spin slowly around and observer the water levels, then add more water and repeat, you wouldn't see the water levels at the edge lower on the 2nd try. They'd be higher. Oh, and I think you mean centripetal force.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I guess it is time for a science education!

Centrifugal force does not exist. It is a combination of inertia and centripital force. i.e. inertia wants to keep going in a straight line away from the asis. Centripital fource pulls the mass in toward the axis to create a new path. This is a continuious process, and results in an eliptical orbit or in some cases a circular orbit.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[tverbeek]

But why would the levels at the artic drop more? If you fill a bowl 1/2 full with water and spin slowly around and observer the water levels, then add more water and repeat, you wouldn't see the water levels at the edge lower on the 2nd try. They'd be higher.

In this analogy, the water levels at the edge would correspond to the water at the equator, and those levels being higher is actually consistent with what he was describing.

Oh, and I think you mean centripetal force.

Not likely, since centripetal force is whatever pulls a revolving object inward. Suggesting that it (in this case, gravity) is responsible for lifting water upward at the equator is a bit nonsensical. Centrifugal force, while a technically incorrect term (since it's really the combined effect of angular momentum and inertia), is what does that.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[Nos.]

In this analogy, the water levels at the edge would correspond to the water at the equator, and those levels being higher is actually consistent with what he was describing.
Only if the speed does not remain constant. Otherwise adding more water would cause water levels to rise across the entire surface. Since we're not talking about changing speed, my point holds true. The water levels would rise unless another force acted upon them.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity is the centripetal force in this scenario. Centripetal force doesn't really exist as an independant force (like, say gravitation or magnetic force) but is instead a re-labeling of any force that's holding an orbiting object in said orbit by opposing the force of the acceleration of the object which is directed away from the center of the rotation. So, what he really meant was accelerational force at the surface of the planet from its own spin.

Yup.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[NuShrike]

mod parent up. Makes perfect sense for more polar water to pile up as an equatorial ring. A tire tube of 'fat' for the Earth.

Remember, the Earth is never exactly spherical due to this AND the Sun and Moon combined, or on opposite sides, pulling "up" the equatorial waters. It's called 'tides'.

Should be able to predict that tide levels have been rising in a parallel trend, but not equal levels due to water displacing less than ice.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[loki_tiwaz]

yeah i was thinking about centripetal force but i remembered vaguely that is the counter force to centrifugal. the centripetal force in the phenomena with the water is simply water's surface tension which causes it to adhere strongly to most of the crust. This may be involved in the drop at the equator. As is the point made earlier in these comments about the increased temperature changing viscosity. Increased temperature also lowers vapour pressure which plays a part too. Surface tension will drop as temperature rises because the rate of vapour formation is also rising. Increasing amounts of water overall will increase the weight of the planet because for one thing, the oxygen is being sucked out of the atmosphere at the same time, which is another point in favour of the idea that the atmosphere is shrinking. And secondary to this is that since this total scenario is leading to an increased amount of atoms stuck on the earth's surface, the planet is becoming heavier, which is thus creating greater pressure on the crust which naturally is going to lead to an increased pressure on the crust and thus increasing the distortion effect. Also, how is this height change being measured? is it relative to air pressure as in the method used to detect altitude in aircraft? because this would also mean greater discrepancies in the measurements since, as is well known, evaporation globally is increasing and so is the water-addition to the atmosphere, if the atmosphere is shrinking in height and increasing in density this will have a subtle but important effect on altitude measurements. This increasing density will also most likely create a differential of the weight of the atmosphere which will affect the depth of the ocean at the poles vs at the equator. Centrifugal force also will be affecting the polar atmosphere density, possibly making it denser because there is very little centrifugal force at the poles where the spin is least. The thing about water density and ice is also worth mentioning. One thing that struck me very early on about the subject of global warming is that melting polar ice caps does not mean a rise in water levels unless the ice is coming off above-sea-level ice. At this point more of the ice melt is from floating ice and floating ice does not make water levels go up *or* down, I don't know why I have never bothered to actually measure this effect, but my intuition tells me that melting ice that was previously displacing water will not raise or lower the water level. However, increased emissions of water into the atmosphere is surely going to add water to the ocean. The point about water's viscosity is important too, since the polar ice and atmospheric conditions cause the water to be a lot colder (and salty water can go below zero C without solidifying) this is again going to change density, as is the fact that the melting water is pure water and thus is also lowering the density of the water. I know i haven't got my model exactly clear but these are all factors missing from the conventional global warming/water levels models.

Re:Centrifugal Force?

[loki_tiwaz]

Also, if my point about changing water density is relevant, even a radar/sonar method of measuring sea depth will be encountering an un-measured factor - that of the change of the wave speed of the measuring device, denser substances tend to transmit vibrations and radiation more slowly, and vice versa. If the level of saltiness of polar cap ocean water is dropping then this will be making the water less dense and thus will tend to make such measurements inaccurately large.

!akaeruE (i.e. "You've lost it...")

[Anonymous Coward]

"Gravity pulls down on the free floating icebergs and it displaces the water. These icebergs are shrinking or being reduced greatly so the water height in the vicinity lowers slightly while the water levels around the world rise slightly."

That has to be the single most entertaining thing I've read on /. in *years*. :D

Isostatic rebound

[amightywind]

Nice speculation. But since the end last ice age most of the coastlines surrounding the Arctic Ocean have undergone isostatic rebound. Most of these areas were highly glaciated and heavily loaded with ice. Once the ice was rapidly removed the land maintained bouyant equilibrium by rising. Apparent sea levels have been falling in these areas for 1000's of years. The only question is how long it will continue and how isostacy and sea level rise interrelate in different areas.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[whitehatlurker]

That was my first thought as well, but the high water mark on land isn't what is being measured from satelite. Rebound raises the land level, and shouldn't (greatly) affect the sea level.

An interesting item is that the global sea level is rising.

Of course, the real answer is that the water up there is cold, and cold water makes things shrink ;-)

Re:Isostatic rebound

[zxnos]

i just want to know their tolerances/error. 2mm? wtf?

Re:Isostatic rebound

[amightywind]

Yes, and measuring a surface with variable size waves and sea ice in different parts of the year. -2.0mm with 10cm errorbars.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[Vreejack]

I would hope they had taken isostatic rebound into account. Actually what puzzles me is how they measured sea level. Are they comparing it to the earth's geode? For those who never heard this before, the geode is an imaginary surface that represents where sea level would be if water were magically allowed to flow without viscosity underneath the earth's land mass. It is not a sphere or even a spheroid but follows the local gravity variations so that it actually rises underneath mountains and dips over marine trenches. The net force of gravity is always perpendicular to the surface of the geode, and when they report the height of Mount Everest it is with respect to the geode, not to the sea level a thousand miles away (which is lower).

So again, how are they measuring this? I can't think of any measurement that makes any sense. The ocean cannot be above the geode in one part of the world and below it in another _by definition_. At least not on average over a year.

Okay, here is my off-the-wall speculation: a new change in wind patterns has resulted in a net outflow of wind at the earth's surface around antarctica, effectively blowing the water away.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[Jasin Natael]

The ocean cannot be above the geode in one part of the world and below it in another _by definition_. At least not on average over a year.

But, the geode is measured relatively to something, because there's no instrument I know of that is capable of measuring the specific gravity for every latitude/longitude on earth. The geode is an equipotential model, and the mass below the point of measurement affects it as well as the mass above. We have seen evidence recently that our magnetic poles are shifting around, so what's to say that some change in densities under the Earth's crust hasn't caused this effect? If the points of focus for the magnetic poles demonstrate some type of organization of materials below the surface, this should be expected.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[budgenator]

Considering that a 50Kt nuclear warhead has to be detonation with a 300m of a typical ICBM silo to achieve a 50-50% of knocking out the ICBM; I can assure you that both the US and Russia has far more detailed maps of ocean Height, depth, currents and gravity potentials in the artic than any place on Earth and those maps are so highly classified that neither will ever admit they even exist.
Since its radar atlimetery from a satelite, my guess is geodic.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[Anonymous Coward]

"Okay, here is my off-the-wall speculation: a new change in wind patterns has resulted in a net outflow of wind at the earth's surface around antarctica, effectively blowing the water away."

Wrong end of the planet, Jack. The article is talking about the Arctic, not the Antarctic.

Re:Isostatic rebound

[Anonymous Coward]

The ocean cannot be above the geode in one part of the world and below it in another _by definition_. At least not on average over a year.

Read up on the Gulf Stream, the oceanic conveyor belt that caries warm water north. By my understanding, it creates a several inch delta in ocean hight in the space of a few hundred feet.

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

" The polar caps are actually *growing* this year, as they have been recently, not shrinking."

if you want to be a pedant, parts of the middle of certain ice sheets are thickening do to increased precipitation, which is due to excess evaporation from warming. the rest of these ice sheets are melting, and more is melting than is thickening.

but thanks for playing "clouding the issue with Dan Grossman" Don, tell him what he didn't win!

Global warming?

[Stavr0]

Could it also mean that warmer = more evaporation = more water vapor in the air = more heat trapped and so on ...

Re:Global warming?

[shotfeel]

No, more water vapor = more clouds = more light reflectd -> cooling

Re:Global warming?

[zippthorne]

water vapor != clouds. Clouds are composed of liquid water.

Re:Global warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

pan evaporation rate has been falling globally. . .see this link
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Cue anti-GW trolls in 3...2...1...

[Limburgher]

I mean, seriously, have you read your own posts? Plate techtonics? Are you kidding me?

Re:Cue anti-GW trolls in 3...2...1...

[GodInHell]

Well, Plate Techtonics will have a roll in the long term fall out of any climate change. The plates shift up and down as the plastic layers become warmer or cooler. Many techtonic plates exist only as highly plastic super-dense superheated bubbles of rock beneath other plates. As these shift upwards and downwards the surface plates (even the ones under the oceans) can move "rapidly", perhaps causing such changes in sea level and ocean currents.

The bulk of the earth is in motion, and very little is static. If humanity wants to survive over the millenias to come, we will have to embrace a culture of response to shifts in environment. We should for instance begin hardening the coast lines and making long-term plans for food production once large swaths of the mid-west have completed their current desertification. We could even start seeding programs to return those territories to their natural state and thus provide land for cattle raising and human habitation... but that would require sacrafice and a broad vision of the future.

-GiH

Re:Cue anti-GW trolls in 3...2...1...

[Dastardly]

Perhaps he was referring to the fact that it is plate tectonics. Not techtonics?

oh dear god no!

[Screwy1138]

2mm a year over thousands of years... ack!

oh wait, 2mm a year over thousands of years of fluctuation.... phew - things are normal, good, scared me there a second.

Re:oh dear god no!

[Screwy1138]

Don't get me wrong, global warming is likely real, and we're probably accelerating it. However, we really need to find less... circumstantial... evidence. Piddily evidence only encourages the detractors.

Re:oh dear god no!

[Khammurabi]

2mm a year over thousands of years... ack!

Tell me about it. I still can't figure out how to make the water stand still long enough for me to measure it with my ruler. It takes ME at least a few seconds to count each of the millimeter lines, and my measurements have a range of plus or minus a couple feet, depending on the day. (Stupid waves.) Although it would explain why people in labcoats and water wings keep wading into the water by the south pier.

Re:Global Cooling

[pete-classic]

Aaaaaah! Panic! Global cooling is BACK!!!!!

Time,
Newsweek,
etc.

-Peter

Re:Global Cooling

[Piata]

O_o Then why are polar bears drowning in record numbers? Arctic ice is melting sooner, global temperature is rising and yet some how the ice caps are magically growing? I would love to see an article backing up your statement as I've never seen anything in the past 2-3 years that didn't indicate the polar caps were melting at an increasing rate.

Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[wklam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming [Wikipedia on Global Dimming]

Quote: Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.

Re:Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[Das Auge]

Your use of "some scientists" is a brilliant display of weasel words.

Re:Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[1stpreacher]

there was a reason he used "Quote:" because that's what it was... 'HE' didn't say that, the 'quote' did.

Re:Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah he could be a journalist.

Re:Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[MrNougat]

Others claim that global warming is a "direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s."

Re:Global Dimming vs Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

This is all about Global INTELLECT dimming, isn't it?

In other news, Antarctic sea level rise is put down to Penguin Pee.

Re:Global Cooling

[Tweekster]

but but but Gore is an environmentalist.

err, I suppose that should be in quotes.

Seriously cant that guy just go back to spain or wherever the hell he disappeared to after losing in 2000.

Elementary Physic... Elementary...

[Dark Coder]

Every physicsts know that when a spinning orb gets bulged out, the rotation slows down, only to spin faster again.... ad infinitium (almost).

This is normal Earth rotational speed oscillation on an eon scale.

Move along, nothing new to see here.

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm...but this article says that the glaciers in Greenland are melting and retreating from the sea, not growing larger.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3922579.st m
Whoever am I to believe about this scientific issue...scientists from the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, or a keyboard jockey from Slashdot?

Re:Global Cooling

[Quinn]

Then why are polar bears drowning in record numbers?

Because they don't know how to swim?

They ate less than twenty minutes before entering the water?

Just too damned fat?

They're drunk?

Suicide pacts?

Forgot their water wings?

Their star is falling while their pollyanish wives are reaching the big time?

They were all carrying Hamlet's child?

you get a big, fat, WTF

[theStorminMormon]

So, to summarize, you believe in global warming you just have this one slight obstacle of not having any hard evidence to back it up? "Of course me theory is right! And once I find the evidence they'll all know it too!"

The biggest problem, in my opinion, with the global warming debate and other contentious scientific issues is that the role of evidence is being reversed. Evidence should come first, and from the evidence we form conclusions. The relative perceived veracity of a given theory should fluctuate according to how well it matches the evidence. To make a scientific metaphor: THE THEORY SHOULD BE THE DEPENDENT VARIABLE.

Instead we have rankorous partisans on both sides who have the conclusions first (probably based on politics and in turn on whatever a-rational reason most people have for their own politics) and simply want to use evidence as a persuasive tool to convince or a bludgeon to pontificate (not to mention the fundraising opportunities). Evidence becomes the slave to our theories when it should be the other way around. So, contrary to the way things should be, we act as though theory was the independent variable (choose your own theory) and then accept or reject evidence based on how well it supports the theory.

This is not good science, and it's even worse grounds for policy-making.

The most sickening part of it all is the way partisans are so frequenly caught making, as you have, bald assertions that they KNOW the truth, if only troublesome evidence would conform to their worldview! I know that partisans and opportunists (not to mention quacks and charlatans) are as much a part of human nature as anything - and we'll never get rid of them, but I kind of wish there was at least some measure of shame associated with being so brazenly hypocritical.

It's one thing to have some enterprising con selling snake oil, it's another to have a scientist, or at least someone who claims to think scientifically, selling magic tonic.

-stormin

Re:you get a big, fat, WTF

[Screwy1138]

LOL cool off just a second...

Okay... now... what I am saying is that the evidence provided in THIS particular article is very poor at best. However, if you're using that to make YOUR point, you're just as off-based as all the scientist you claim to be frustrated with. In the end, you only make my point, that futile pieces of fact like this article has only fuels your fire, it's 'evidence' that has been shaped to fit the needs of the global warming support camp. This is back to my point, why I hate it when people stretch like this.

There is however a LOT of circumstantial evidence beyond this article, and we all acknowledge we don't know for sure if this global warming thing is just a natural cycle, or any number of other things. We do know that we are polluting a lot and as a species we can make a pretty good guess that the footprint we have on the earth is not good, and we should reduce it.

In conclusion, I'm sorry you misunderstood my point, but you made it rather well.

Re:you get a big, fat, WTF

[theStorminMormon]

If you were referring only to the evidence in this particular article then I guess I jumped the gun. To clarify, I was referring to the type of thinking that you seemed to espouse (theory first, evidence second) and not to any particular aspect of this article. Even if it turns out that this was not a good example of the behavior in question, I'll consider it an argument poorly aimed as opposed to an argument poorly made.

-stormin

Re:you get a big, fat, WTF

[Dastardly]

Actually, it is some evidence, theory that makes support initial evidence and makes new predictions, then more evidence in the form of verification of predictions.

Actually, I would argue global warming is evidence not theory. There is plenty of data showing globally rising temperatures. The theory is that there is a significant human contribution to that rising temperature due to burning of fossil fuels. One prediction of this theory is that carbon in the air and water would show a isotopis signatures consitent with carbon from very old sources (litte C-14). Additional evidence of human contirbution is in the timing of the temperature rise, the correlation of CO2 levels in the atmosphere in the distant past to global temperature, and computer models. I am sure there are more, but I don't know them all.

Personally, I don't want to wait for much more evidence say in the form of 4+ degree rise in average global temperature and the flooding, hurricanes, and economic disruption that said temperature rise and climate change would cause. Because, by then all you can do is say, "I told you so."

Re:you get a big, fat, WTF

[Screwy1138]

I think we're coming around to the same point... that we both hate the evidence provided in this article (maybe for different reasons). I agree this is theory first, evidence second, and that is bad (see my very original post that spawned the responses).

Slashdot isn't peer reviewed

[damburger]

I wouldn't take seriously any explanation posted here. I've read through a few of them, and although I myself am not a climatologists, they do strike me as being scientific-sounding rationalisations of an existing opinion.

Climate change is a kind of political topic, and this means that everyone who has a political opinion pretends to be an expert on the subject.

Re:Slashdot isn't peer reviewed

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, slashdot is peer reviewed.

Re:Slashdot isn't peer reviewed

[PipeIsArt]

I beg to argue that all scientific explanations are rationalizations of existing opinons.

thus the whole scientific method:
1) Hypothesis
2) Test the Hypothesis
3) Note the results.

The definition for Hypothesis, http://www.answers.com/hypothesis?ff=1, sounds a lot like an existing opinion to me.

It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[unity100]

Or should it ?

Phletora of things related to climate oddities happening here and there, yet there STILL are people that are passing them as 'localized' occurences.

Yea, hordes of localized occurences all over the world. Sounds like 'global' to me.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[RexRhino]

Except that weather is full of random fluxuations and anomylous local occurances. It is very bad science to say that every random weather patter that we can't explain is caused by global warming. It is fearmongering and political posturing, not science.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[shotfeel]

Like what oddities?

You may be familiar with the name James Hansen? AKA the scientist the Bush administration is accused of trying to silence?
He's one of the most strident global warming supporters,.

He gave an interview a while back where he criticised armchair climatologists (my words, not his) who tried to blame every little thing on global warming (that's weather, geology... not climate). The science doesn't support that, and doesn't need that kind of "junk" (again, my word, not his) to be believed. Worse, when things like the 10 year cycle in hurricane number/strength goes into its waning years (coming soon), the anti-global warming crowd will point at that as evidence that global warming is no longer a problem!

IOW if you build your arguments on the non-science, it will come back to bite you.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[Shivetya]

But is taking "action" any better when we don't know the science behind it?

They don't know.

To take action when one doesn't know what is happening could make things worse.

Of course we know there are oddities occuring, but that is the key word - oddities. Its odd when we don't understand.

The problem with Climate science is that it hasn't been all that long since we had the tools to truly understand it. Hell we have had only a couple of decades where we could accurate measure temperatures around the globe. The accuracy increases each year and yes we will learn something from it. Some things we learn will proven "common" beliefs to be totally wrong, others may actually prove some concepts.

That is the crux of the Global Warming issue. We don't know enough to be sure what all the causes are and if actions we take will have the desired effect. If we knew the climate as well as some think they do then why are simple things like weather prediction difficult? Easy, its difficult and not simple, its difficult because we don't know all the variables. We know the obvious ones, well at least we think we do.

So before flying off the handle we need to realize we are not as smart as we think we are.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[unity100]

There is even a branch of mathematics, studying on Chaos - chaos mathematics.

In a system like globe, the sum of all randomnesses and fluctuations sum up to one observeable final system.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice political posturing on your part.

I'll NEVER understand why so many people would rather deny reality than try to acknowledge it, and find a reasonable way to profit from it (by investing in alternative energy sources, etc.)

It's like you're all fucking retarded. Oh wait, you ARE.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[tthomas48]

Yes, but nearly all of the "actions" I've heard recommended for dealing with global warming are just common sense, and would have other benefits. It's not as though someone has decided we should take an enormous glacier from the arctic ocean and drive it down to the equator to try to cool things off, change the orbit of the earth to be further from the sun, or some other fanciful suggestion. They're suggesting things like using less fossil fuels, looking into alternative energy, and reducing pollution and industry waste. I mean you cannot deny that any of these things are positive unless you're an industry shill. And they're actions we can safely take today, until we understand fully the science tomorrow.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[-ThOM5-]

In the article if you look at the pictures "Artic Ice in Retreat", it shows the ice coverage by year since 1980. Looking at the pictures in succession there is more ice in 1996 than 1980, but less ice in 1990 than 2004. The data only provides the smallest slice of time, clearly the ice pack works off a much larger clock, counting by centuries not years. Is the ice getting smaller? The data in this article does not prove it one way or the other. What is does prove is that there is still much to learn before any assessment can be made about the changes being observed. The Earth is a lot more resilient than many give her credit for: more heat from greenhouse gases = more water = more water vapor = more clouds = more rain = more foliage = more oxygen = lowered temperatures. The checks and balances mother nature has in place are quite fascinating.

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[marcosdumay]

I completely agree: We shouldn't act until we know better what is happening with the weather...

Now, if you people stopped acting on the direction of completely change Earth's atmosphere, It would surely be saffer... Or you definition of "acting" is "changing nothing"?

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[PixelScuba]

We might accidentally reduce smog around urban populations and reduce mercury levels in water if we're wrong! Won't somebody please think of the... oh wait...

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, hordes of localized occurences all over the world. Sounds like 'global' to me."

Well of course it does, you're stupid. How does it feel to be too stupid to understand the subject matter?

I bet it's worse though that you're too stupid to know to keep your mouth shut. How does that feel?

Re:It shouldnt take a mega-catastrophe to get it

[unity100]

I revel in the fact that i am stupid enough not to understand your disturbed grammar.

depends on your reference...

[Luxifer]

You could also just say that land levels are rising in the area they are talking about.

The Wright answer

[Ken Hall]

Maybe global warming is causing an increase in the sponge population.

Re:The Wright answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe global warming is causing an increase in the sponge population.

And everyone knows that the increase in sponge population is due to the decrease in the number of pirates. Less pirates means fewer swabbed decks. How the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster works his magic!

Re:The Wright answer

[Anonymous Coward]

Ha. I just heard Steven Wright tell that joke yesterday on XM Radio. The Wright answer indeed.

Re:The Wright answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"Maybe global warming is causing an increase in the sponge population."

Yes, but are the sponges in the water, or is the water in the sponges?

all the best,

drew

( aka zotz )

Re:The Wright answer

[Anonymous Coward]

And before you know it, you are bothered by a placed called Bikinibottom and a yellow sponge in square pants.

The Precautionary Principle

[Frekja]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned recently in the comments on Slashdot is the idea of the Precautionary Principle (http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80841e/8084 1E0o.htm#12.%20The%20precaution%20principle/. By its very nature, good science is uncertain- its investigations rarely produce evidence that points in only one direction, and the whole point of the scientific method is to avoid coming to dogmatic, unjustified beliefs.

This produces problems when science and politics come together, because of the way science is treated by popular culture and popular politicians. Essentially, science is popularly viewed and portrayed as being a source of certainty. This is why the extremely small number of global warming naysayers always are referred to as scientists (irrespective of whether their credentials are respected or relevant). It creates the illusion that "science" has yet to arrive at its intended goal: absolute certainty. But as any good scientist will tell you, scientific truth is always provisional.

Thus, the trouble with doing something about global warming is that there is a disjunction between the sort of certainty (absolute) that politicians facing re-election and pressure groups want before acting, and the sort of certainty (provisional, always subject to revision) that scientists can, in good faith and following the strict methodology of science, give. Enter the precaution principle, which basically states that if you have a reasonably likely possibility of really bad future outcomes, you should try to do something about it, even if it's possible those outcomes don't come to pass. To me, global warming fits this scenario.

Re: The Precautionary Principle

[Black Parrot]

> Thus, the trouble with doing something about global warming is that there is a disjunction between the sort of certainty (absolute) that politicians facing re-election and pressure groups want before acting, and

Politicians don't like absolute certainty. They merely want to be able to construct the appearance of absolute certainty when it suits their agenda, and the appearance of absolute doubt when that suits their agenda.

Re:The Precautionary Principle

[ScentCone]

Enter the precaution principle, which basically states that if you have a reasonably likely possibility of really bad future outcomes, you should try to do something about it, even if it's possible those outcomes don't come to pass. To me, global warming fits this scenario.

To me, the typical proposals that are bandied about also fit that scenario. To wit, proposing that the western economies/cultures most able to continue their existing work in making more efficient use of energy "fix" the problem by crippling the very economic engines that produce the largesse that funds that sort of R&D... while leaving 50% of the world's energy consumers to merrily (and with vastly, vastly more polluting inefficiencies) keep growing and burning as if they were still some small village... that's the perfect scenario in which to apply a princple of caution. That India, and most of Asia (including, of course, the wildly exploding, fuel-burning China) are exempt from most people's prescriptions for a cure: total nonsense. No treaty set up in that way is reasonable, and more importantly, is of essentially no consequence (even if we DO assume that tiny changes in emmissions can compete with the influence of solar cycles, etc).

Let the 1-st world economies continue to work on new technologies, and focus the preventative-hand-wringing urges instead on deforestation in Africa, Asia, and South America. Or, buy some Brazilian village a new bus, since the one they've been using since 1970 spits out more sloppy hydrocarbons than 200 late-model SUVs hauling kids to the movies at the mall (where the screen is lit up with electricity powered largely by coal... how about some more nukes? much better). But all of this requires waiving off of any political correctness, and oh no, we can't have that in our discussions with corrupt, embattled developing governments.

Re:The Precautionary Principle

[amliebsch]

To me, global warming fits this scenario.

You missed a key element, though, which is that it only makes sense to do something if: (a) your actions are likely to have a positive (rather than no or negative) effect on the problem and (b) the benefits outweigh the costs. Now, I'm not convinced that global warming is substantially more likely to have negative effects than positive ones, and I'm even less convinced that, if it were demonstrably more likely to have negative effects, we would feasibly be able to do anything about it in the foreseeable future.

Re:The Precautionary Principle

[Frekja]

To wit, proposing that the western economies/cultures most able to continue their existing work in making more efficient use of energy "fix" the problem by crippling the very economic engines that produce the largesse that funds that sort of R&D... while leaving 50% of the world's energy consumers to merrily (and with vastly, vastly more polluting inefficiencies) keep growing and burning as if they were still some small village... that's the perfect scenario in which to apply a princple of caution.

If you put it this way, it does sound bad; but consider your presuppositions.

I see no reason to conclude that reducing CO2 emissions will necessarily lead to the "crippling" of western economies. If anything, the current capitalist system requires that people (marketing people, mostly) continue to invent reasons why we need to get rid of old technology and buy new stuff- this enforced obsolescence, after all, is what keeps the economy, as it is currently structured, going. So why would new regulations that spur both technological innovation (in renewable energy) and enforced obsolescence (new environmental standards forcing old inefficient plants to shut) be bad?

As for your claim that we in the West should "buy some Brazilian village a new bus", this is precisely what the carbon trading scheme in Kyoto is designed to do. Countries like Germany, where even fossil fuel powered plants are pretty efficient, can essentially buy their way to increased pollution by offsetting pollution in, say, China through building a more efficient power plant there.

The point about the fact that India, China, etc are excluded from Kyoto in any meaningful way is well taken. Of course developing nations need to rein in their emissions (assuming that our goal is to reduce CO2 emissions), but the only way that can happen is if the West lets them use new technology rather than forcing them to develop along the same dirty, polluting course the West took. And there's the rub, because that involves the West licensing new technology at prices that are affordable for a low GDP country.

Re:The Precautionary Principle

[robertjw]

I see no reason to conclude that reducing CO2 emissions will necessarily lead to the "crippling" of western economies.

It will because everyone is an extremist on one side or the other. I see articles all the time about how there should be $3.00/gallon of gas tax added, or SUV owners should be fined, Fuel mileage standards should be increased in unreasonable amounts, etc, etc... If some of these ridiculous actions go into place it will cripple the economy. OTOH, constructive things like Nuke plants, public transportation, increased technology infrastructre that would allow people to more easily telecommut, or even simple traffic engineering studies to increase traffic flow and minimize pollution from cars idling in traffic jams are overlooked.

If you are really going to do make changes do it in a way that is both constructive and fits into the capitalist system.

Is it just me?

[tscheez]

or does 2.17mm seem too exact and a very small measurement to be taken from a satellite? I mean even GPS is off by a bit.

Re:Is it just me?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

Here's a clue. Take a sheet of paper. Measure its thickness with a ruler. Tricky? OK. Now take a stack of 50 sheets of paper and measure their thickness with a ruler. Easier, no?

Re:Is it just me?

[tscheez]

are you suggesting to divide that result by 50 then? that wont get you an exact answer. if i wanted to measure one sheet of paper precisely i'd do it with a caliper.

my point was that the measurement not only was small, but was taken to two significant digits. which i would think would be very difficult to tell from orbit. (not to mention the the earth's oceans are liquid and tend to have waves)

i suggest you measure that 50 sheet stack of paper with a ruler that is 30 miles long.

Re:Is it just me?

[Philotic]

This is actually how we know the depths all over the ocean without actually going down there with a flashlight and a really long measuring tape (or sonar scans of course).

Cue the pro-GW facists in 3... 2... 1...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Belittle any opposition as trolls. Way to stifle debate. But then again debate and discussion and facts have never been the province of your ilk.

Re:Cue the pro-GW facists in 3... 2... 1...

[DenDude]

/* But then again debate and discussion and facts have never been the province of your ilk.*/

wow... GP has an ILK? I've never even had a minion, and I'm f'n jealous.

Re:Totally off-topic reply here....

[shotfeel]

*raises hand

The way the green "title" line, the gray "by" line and the text are aligned vs. indented makes the distinction between message, parent and GP blend and disappear. If they made the text of the message body align not with the text of the gray and green "boxes" but with the left edge of the gray/green area itself, it would make everything clearer IMO.

The way it is now, when viewing two messages at the same "level" of indent, you get the illusion that the bottom message is one level higher, almost.... because your eye tracks back a little.

Don't know if that makes any sense or not.

done before: Re:What?

[legalize.ganja.now.]

you come to late. http://www.icebergwater.com/

It's the spin!

[udoschuermann]

It all becomes perfectly clear now! Polar waters flatten and equatorial waters rise because of increased spin of the Earth. The days (and months and years) don't seem to be as long as they used to be. Time is not constant. We all die young. Augh!

Re:Totally off-topic reply here....

[Anonymous Coward]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/658/slashdotshiny fixv0012vy.png
http://slashdot.org/~Slashdot+Shinyfix/journal/137 115

...Or the Antarctic plate is rising

[dredson]

Is the water level lowering or is the Antarctict techtonic plate rising? Or is the earth growing fatter (around the equator, that is) and shorter?

Re:...Or the Antarctic plate is rising

[fatmal]

Is the water level lowering or is the Antarctict techtonic plate rising? Or is the earth growing fatter (around the equator, that is) and shorter?

Dunno about the Earth, but I'm getting fatter and shorter!

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

This too was predicted by the global warming model: warmer climates cause more evaporation, leading to more rainfall. Rain or snow on glaciers freezes, but the glaciers absorb heat from the warmer precipitation in order to freeze it, leading to a larger but warmer block of ice, which then goes on to melt faster.

Cue ... questioning assumptions

[shotfeel]

Kind of depends on how depth measurements are being made.

Reminded me of a news story I saw a while back about a group of islands slowly disappearing under the water. Of course the culprit is global warming melting arctic ice resulting in higher water levels.

Then again, nobody seemed to even consider that erosion may be lowering the land level instead.

Which brings back the question of how are the measurements being made? From TFA it appears to be a very complex process. I simply don't have the expertise and information to assess how reliable it is, so I'll "take it on faith" for now that the measurments are correct.

Re:Cue ... questioning assumptions

[reanjr]

Main problem with global warming data (as far as I'm concerned) is that most of the long term temperature readings we have is from major cities. The better/farther back the data goes, the more likely it is to be from a major urban center. Urban centers, as population increases, and as industry increases, become warmer.

You can actually feel this (in late autumn especially) when going from outside in the suburbs to outside in the city on a calm day (wind will skew things greatly in BOTH directions, depending on if you're in a windy corridor or being blocked by a line of buildings).

I have actually gone through the data (available from some US government website, I wish I could remember which, I think it's noaa.gov, google can probably help). I took random samples (about 100, for a presentation on global warming for school) and then looked up where they were located. If I excluded cities, the global trend was fairly constant (rising early 20th century, falling since then). If I used only oceanic data, the temperature has dropped over the last 100 years.

Most major reports on global warming do not use raw data, but use a fudge factor to accomodate for this effect (urban island effect I believe it is called). The problem is the fudge number is usually calculated to make the math fit the expected result.

This is part of why the calculations are convoluted, though there are other reasons. Sometime between the 15th and 18th centuries (I apologize I do not recall when), the world (especially the Northern Atlantic, affecting Europe and US where the most good long term data is) is though to have gone through a period of great cooling, with average temperatures dropping a few degrees. We have yet to reach the temperatures that existed before this time of cooling. Much of global warming could be due to this effect slingshotting back.

This data is also often accounted for in fudge factors, trying to estimate how quickly we should recover from this and how quickly we are. But the science for understanding the planet's long-term temperature regulation is not well understood, so this number is somewhat suspect as well.

Back to the specific topic of oceanic rising, I haven't personally seen any conclusive data supporting this theory that convinced me they weren't really measuring erosion. On the other hand, I have seen data in some areas that show ocean levels lowering. Though it is probably much easier to measure ocean levels lowering than rising (erosion can not be a factor, if the coast is getting bigger, the ocean is lowering or your tectonic plate is lifting, which I would imagine would be noticed in other ways).

In my opinion, no one has any real proof of global warming due to humans, global warming in general (in the sense that there are catastrophic climatic changes coming), global temperature regulation, or global cooling (there are some proponents that say the the temporary global warming will cause long term global cooling). Take scientific studies with a grain of salt and especially check their references which may have been flawed in the first place. Be very wary of adjusted data that doesn't go to great lengths to firmly convince you of why it has been adjusted. Ignore media stories about the issue. Don't vote for politicians who make laws based on this "science". Don't listen to anyone, including me.

Re:Cue ... questioning assumptions

[misleb]

Then again, nobody seemed to even consider that erosion may be lowering the land level instead.

Oh my god! Something is eroding the Artic Ocean! Soon there will be no more oceans and we will be hot AND dry!

-matthew

Re:Cue ... questioning assumptions

[soft_guy]

Reminded me of a news story

Mainstream "news" stories about science are notoriously short of facts and also are quite often incorrect.

The Chicken Little Theory

[Atomm]

The artic ocean has not fallen 2mm. The sky has fallen 2mm. This gives you the impression the ocean is down 2mm. ;-)

Re:The Chicken Little Theory

[mxfuzzy]

Well, satellites do drift lower in their orbits (and by more than 2mm/year), how can they obtain such accuracy? If the satellite drifts lower, the ocean will seem to rise... how can they accurately compensate for that to this degree?

Too much bias in this debate. Why should the scientists "be surprised by their findings" like the article said... remain impartial when performing research or you'll explain away any "outlier" than doesn't fit your "expected outcome".

Re:The Chicken Little Theory

[punkr0x]

Wouldn't the sky have risen 2mm for this effect? Stop it, it's getting away!!

Hey! there's my cue!

[spun]

George Bush is a semi-sapient simpering simian simpleton. He is a retarded rich fuck who snorted cocaine and drove drunk. He ran every business he ever touched into the ground. He's a complete puppet for the monied interests that control our country. He thinks God talks directly to him. He probably knew about 9/11 beforeheand, which is why he wasn't surprised when it happened. Hell, he wanted it to happen so he could take away civil liberties and give huge no-bid contracts to all his cronies. George Bush is a traitor, and should be put up against the wall and shot, not just impeached. Anyone who voted for George Bush should be sterilized. George Bush hoodwinked real conservatives. He isn't conservative, he's a fucking bandit, a pirate out to loot and pillage this great country and disappear before anyone figures out we've been robbed.

How's that?

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[operagost]

Congratulations! You're an idiot!

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[spun]

Thank you, thank you very much. To have a GWB supporter call me an idiot is a great compliment indead. It need not be said as you were warned in the very title, but YHBT. YHL. HAND.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[hcob$]

Yes, I'm feeding the trolls:

Hell, he wanted it to happen so he could take away civil liberties and give huge no-bid contracts to all his cronies.

Wonderfully insightful statement(or straw man... however you want to put it). It must be nice to offhandedly assign someone's motives to them so that you can tear apart that position... instead of logically attacking their actual position.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[spun]

Oh come on, have a laugh. It's on me. Someone predicted anti GWB trolls, so I supplied 'em. Wouldn't be funny if I were actually critiquing the man, I had to use troll tactics. You really want me to critique GWB in a non-troll fashion? Gah, go read an editorial page. Listen to Air America. That shit is depressing. No, I'd rather have a laugh and go wildly over the top with it.

You conservatives can dish it out but you can't take it. Admit it, you have a little chuckle at the verbal diarrhea spewing out of the mouths of people like Anne Coulter, but let some poor liberal say something that's not 100% PC and you go all righteously indignant.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[DenDude]

/* Anyone who voted for George Bush should be sterilized */

Awesome! I bet you and Adolph would have a great time talking about eugenics!!

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[spun]

Chill out, it's just a joke. Try taking that stick out of your butt, that'll help. I was making fun of liberals my man! Dude predicted trolls, so I gave him one. Can't be a proper troll without being over the top. I swear, conservatives have no sense of humor.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[DenDude]

I sincerely apogize. I misunderstood your point, and I think I need more coffee or something.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[BigTimMcWhiskers]

Yes yes I understand the joke and I did think it was funny. I also enjoyed reading the replies and I like how you actually take the time to respond to each of them. You appear to have entered a 'B' into the cue for 'anti-GW' trolls, perhaps you found the real source of GW? Global warming bushes! ;)

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[j_snare]

I'll admit, I found it funny as hell. The trick was to pay attention to that last line: "How's that?"

Otherwise, it looked a bit like some other posts I see around here.

Nice one, I hope you can get a chuckle out of the people that are coming here and over-reacting back...

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[spun]

Glad you liked it. I'm particularly proud of the way I build towards complete frothing lunacy at the end, it adds a bit of dramatic tension to the piece. ;) A good troll tweaks the noses of both sides, don't you think? The conservative response is funny, if predictable, but the funnier part is imagining all the liberals reading along uncritically, nodding their heads.

Re:Hey! there's my cue!

[Anonymous Coward]

"To have a GWB supporter call me an idiot is a great compliment"

Exactly the response an idiot would give. Nicely done idiot.

Good idea...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but where the Hell are they going to find the room to stack up 50 Arctic seas?

Re:Global Cooling

[shotfeel]

Let's wait and see what the Moderators think!

The explanation is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

The 2mm/year drop is easily explained by all of those companies selling purified artic water in 20oz bottles. they have been taking these records since 1992, around the same time these companies started the bottled water scam.

Time itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

...does not flow at a regular, fixed rate. It never has, does not now, and never will flow at a uniform rate, however, we humans lack the proper dimensional frame of reference needed to be able to measure the flow rate of time itself, since... well our perception of time is the only thing we have to gauge it against and with that as our only tool, it becomes an impossible task.

In other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

scientists discover that water levels vary.

Re:But...

[woodsrunner]

definitely, but the installation is difficult since Penguins aren't native to the Arctic and Polar Bears find them yummy.

'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[unity100]

You know what is happening with the net neutrality thing :

Some big corps have paid 'lobby'ists, and these people are blurting out all kinds of fact and fiction to hold their bidder's case.

Same is the situation with global warming. Industry interests do not want things to be decided. They want to continue emission, continue expansion unchecked and unregulated in regard to environment. This is why bush have not signed in kyoto treaty.

It is folly not to get there are hordes of lobbyists, 'scientists' that are paid and funded by these corporations, being their mouthpieces.

So, if you wait some consensus to happen in the science community before something is done, this will be in the wake of a major catastrophe. And in something's wake, you cant rush nothing - youre doomed.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[Martin Blank]

This is why bush have not signed in kyoto treaty.

Whether or not a president signs it is immaterial aside from symbolism. President Clinton signed onto the protocol, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification because of the prior overwhelming vote against it that would have been an embarrassing defeat for his administration.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[unity100]

Well, just translate 'signing in' to 'approval by congress'. What does differ ? The big business is still doing mischief and misleading people by spending money. Lobbyists, the scientist who get funding from these corporations ...

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[nelsonal]

The problem I have with Kyoto is that if we assume the worst case senario (that humans are the primary cause of global warming and the result is destruction of our way of life etc), that it still is a pretty inneffective way of reducing CO2 emissions. It would be far cheaper to give developing nations some of our pollution reduction technology and pay them to build their societies to function with less energy requirements (far cheaper to build a new building with efficiency in mind than retrofit existing buildings) yet the only nations required to cut emissions were the developed countries. I wish there had been some thought about cutting emissions in a more efficient manner globally.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[marcosdumay]

YOU (the US, I guess you are american) emmit 1/3 of all the carbon the humanity puts at the atmosfere. Alone.

Why do you say that it would be better to lower the emission of the third world? You get to the point of saying that it would be more effective!!!!

And what is that low emission thechnology that you say the first world have? Last time I saw, most of it was done on a few countries, lots of them of the third world... The US (biggest representative) can't even stop driving SUVs.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[StikyPad]

He's just saying, dollar for dollar, deutschmark for deutschmark, pound for pound, or dinar for dinar, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. The most effective use of money would be to spend it on new, less polluting technologies rather than retrofitting the old stuff, which will eventually be replaced anyway as it becomes obsolete and the maintenance costs get higher. The US may be the highest polluter, but only because we were leading in industry and technology.. we got here first. Our CO2 output no longer increases at a geometrical rate, however as other countries become more developed, theirs WILL.

Power plants and cars don't have infinite lifetimes. The old will be replaced by the new eventually, and doing it RIGHT NOW instead of phased over 10 years won't change anything significantly, especially when there's no reason to believe that cutting CO2 output will have any positive effect.

Moreover, nobody can even define what a positive effect IS. What's bad for people in coastal regions could turn deserts into productive farmland. The only thing we know for sure is that things will change, and everybody's afraid of change.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[Blappo]

I think the real problem is people like yourself.

Rather than admit that there are genuine questions about the validity of the science, we see far too many people like you who make it a point to confuse the issue.

When confronted by real problems with the science, you rush to blame lobbyists and politicians. You accuse scientists who disagree with your position of being bought and paid for.

In short, you have no reasonable reply to the very real questions on the subject, so you head straight to the easiest out you have, blame the other guy and question his motives.

And the questions go unanswered.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[unity100]

Should i need to point out that, sufficient money, power and influence have been successful even for persuading a nation that the jews were behind all evils, back in 33 in germany ?

Science is something which is more easily supressable than a nation. Cut fundings, appoint correct persons and dismiss the 'wrong' ones, you have what you want.

Nay, actually i reach my point moving basic logic, which is in fact the basis of science :

If there are too many pointers as to something being exploited or people being mislead, that means that that thing is being exploited or people are being mislead.

Re:'Lobby'ists - take them into account

[nelsonal]

If our goal is to cut global emissions by say 20%, why not focus on the least productive 20% of global emissions. Certainly 1/3 of the cost of global cuts should be shouldered by the US, but most of the West produces a whole lot more output per unit of energy. If you mandate that each country must cut their emission by 20% you will remove more total output than if you let all countries trade to reduce the least productive output. Let's say there are 100 factories that each emit 100 units of carbon dioxide per year (both the factory and the workers cars to get to the factory).
Simply throttling back all the factories by 20% is a very inefficient method of cutting our industry's emissions. What if one factory produces outputs worth $1 billion and another can only produce outputs of $100 million. It would be most effective for the rich factory to pay for the changes necessary to enhance the effiency of the less productive factory.
Had we started this prior to the massive building boom that is going on in so much of the developing world the developed world could have financed far more energy efficient cities there (better mass transit and city designs), which is far cheaper than trying to rebuild, say Los Angeles to function more like Amsterdam.

How many desalinization plants are being built?

[poopie]

This is speculation on my part, but I know that most arid countries have invested very heavily in large reverse osmosis plants that provide a significant portion of their fresh drinking water (anyone have stats?).

As the global population shoots up, and people continue trying to find ways to make inhabitable land habitable, I only see this trend increasing.

Is it possible that we could end up sucking up enough water out of the oceans and redistributing it that we could change not ocean levels?

At first thought it sounds rather improbable, but then again... years ago I wouldn't have believed that coal mines in China could dirty the entire world, either.

Re:How many desalinization plants are being built?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about you, but after sucking up enough water from the oceans (often enough in combination with malted barley), I generally return that water back to the planet, usually utilizing a porcelain transfer mediation device.

If I managed to drop the water level on the ocean and kept it that way, I expect I'd really have to go.

Umm... it's all at the gas station

[steveo777]

Bottled water, pop, beer, juice. Blame Coke, Pepsi and all the other product bottlers. All the missing water is sitting inside of glass or plastic bottles.

If that isn't the answer, than I'm sure Mayor Adam West's research will not have been in vain... (Family Guy reference for those not in the know)

Re:Elem - Water escaping to space (radio waves)?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that they have been saying that they found evidence of sedimentary rock on Mars! So - where did the water go... did it escape into space? If so, then could it happen here (and if so how could it happen)? Radio waves or pollution changing the upper atmosphere and stripping away some unstudied layer that keeps the water here? Go figure?

It's an optical illusion

[The_REAL_DZA]

The Earth only looks fatter and shorter because of those horizontal lines (what is it again? "Latitude goes up and down and Longitude goes all around..." too lazy to look it up but not too lazy to type-out the rhyme; yep, this is Slashdot!) around the middle. Try it with a globe: erase the Longitude lines and leave the Latitude lines... suddenly the Earth is svelte again!!

Re:It's an optical illusion

[Kalinago]

Perhaps it would be easier to give mother Gaia a black dress. Old wive's tales say black makes you thinner. *[ducks]*

Re:It's an optical illusion

[dredson]

Latitude is flat-itude. Longitude is the other.

Magnetic fields fluctuationg

[MrTester]

My first thought is that it could be related to the fluctuating magnetic fields (if I werent lazy I would link to some article on the upcomming pole reversal, but I am lazy, so deal with it).

But surely these people are a lot smarter than I am and would have considered this?

Blame the dolphin's

[guruevi]

Good bye and thanks for all the fish, now that all the mass of them darn dolphin's are gone, the water dropped by 2mm. Easy explanation.

The end is near - I knew it.

Re:Blame the dolphin's

[Vorondil28]

I think you mean "...now that all the volume of them darn dolphins...".

Remember, lead dolphins and Styrofoam dolphins displace the same amount of water.


Nonetheless, your Hitchhikers' Guide reference is appreciated.

Should be self-evident

[tassii]

Frozen water expands, taking up more room. When the ice melts, the volume it takes up reduces, lowering the sea level.

Re:Should be self-evident

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Frozen water expands, taking up more room. When the ice melts, the volume it takes up reduces, lowering the sea level.

Frozen water expands, taking up more room, but also lowering the density. Ice on land that melts goes into the sea, theoretically raising the water level. Floating ice melts, becoming more dense, thus the part that was above the water now displaces space as well, resulting in no net change in the water level. So a positive amount of displacement from runoff added to no change in displacement from floating ice should result in raising sea levels. You can determine this experimentally with a glass and some ice cubes.

Re:Should be self-evident

[mypalmike]

"Heavy" ice, that is ice that is weighted down by rocks and other debris so that it doesn't float, will do exactly as the parent post suggested. The same with undersea ice caverns, etc. I'm not postulating that it's the cause here, but lower sea levels could result from the melting of subsurface, non-buoyant ice.

Re:Should be self-evident

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

"Heavy" ice, that is ice that is weighted down by rocks and other debris so that it doesn't float

That's not actually ice though, but a conglomerate of ice and other materials. There is super-dense ice that can sink, but that is an extreme rarity. In addition, there are also plenty of ice conglomerates that contain lighter than water organics and trapped air pockets. In any case, I think it is clear what the poster intended to express and that it was flawed. It is an easy mistake to make.

I'm not postulating that it's the cause here, but lower sea levels could result from the melting of subsurface, non-buoyant ice.

Perhaps. I don't really know enough about the subject to present an informed opinion. There certainly are a lot of possible factors.

Re:Should be self-evident

[mypalmike]

That's not actually ice though, but a conglomerate of ice and other materials.

Right, but the fact doesn't change that if the ice within the conglomerate melts, the containing body of water will have a decrease in sea level.

In addition, there are also plenty of ice conglomerates that contain lighter than water organics and trapped air pockets.

Interesting point. Indeed, buoyant ice with trapped air and other low-density contaminants can also melt and reduce the sea level.

In any case, I think it is clear what the poster intended to express and that it was flawed. It is an easy mistake to make.

I disagree. They simply pointed out that ice decreases in volume when it melts. The assumptions about the "purity" of the ice and the fact that it's not somehow trapped under the surface (see "kettles", for instance) were your own.

Re:Should be self-evident

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I disagree. They simply pointed out that ice decreases in volume when it melts. The assumptions about the "purity" of the ice and the fact that it's not somehow trapped under the surface (see "kettles", for instance) were your own.

The original poster wrote, "Frozen water expands, taking up more room. When the ice melts, the volume it takes up reduces, lowering the sea level." I think that strongly implies they were talking about the expansion and contraction of water, not material trapped within the ice. In any case, even if they did not, they are still wrong. The ice does not take up less space, (being water by definition) but materials trapped within it might be more dense.

Re:Should be self-evident

[mypalmike]

The original poster wrote, "Frozen water expands, taking up more room. When the ice melts, the volume it takes up reduces, lowering the sea level." I think that strongly implies they were talking about the expansion and contraction of water, not material trapped within the ice. In any case, even if they did not, they are still wrong. The ice does not take up less space, (being water by definition) but materials trapped within it might be more dense.

Indeed, they were referring to the expansion and contraction of water, in particular during phase changes. Are you claiming that a given mass of H2O has the same volume at solid and liquid temperatures? If so, you are mistaken.

Re:Should be self-evident

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Are you claiming that a given mass of H2O has the same volume at solid and liquid temperatures?

No. I'm claiming that a given mass of H20, in a body of water displaces the same volume of that water at both solid and liquid temperatures. This is because the solid form, while having a greater volume, is less dense and thus some of it protrudes above the surface of the water and does not displace water (and thus raise the water level). Coincidentally, these two factors cancel out. Go ahead and put some ice, floating in water (not piled on the bottom, floating freely). Measure the water level. Now wait for it to melt and measure again. You'll get the same measurement.

This is a pretty well known phenomenon and the reason the arctic levels not rising is surprising is because so much of the ice is not floating freely, but is suspended on land masses. Since that is so, we'd expect that ice (which has not been displacing any water) to raise the level, not lower it. The relative volume of the different phases does figure into the equation, but is cancelled out by the buoyancy.

Re:Should be self-evident

[mypalmike]

I'm claiming that a given mass of H20, in a body of water displaces the same volume of that water at both solid and liquid temperatures.

And you are wrong, because you assume ice always floats. Do a google search for Antarctic anchor ice for one particularly relevant example of subsurface ice. There are quite a number of others.

Re:Should be self-evident

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

And you are wrong, because you assume ice always floats.

I made no such assumption, in fact I mentioned kinds of ice that don't float earlier in this thread, if you bothered to read it. For example, ice weighed down by impurities, or attached to a land mass, and even rare cases of very dense ice. Now as to whether non-floating ice which is not on a land mass makes up a significant factor, I doubt it.

Tell the Eskimos...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to put the drain plug back in.

We must ALL

[Anonymous Coward]

We must ALL stop ManBearPig. I'm totally cerial.

ERS-2 satellite rising?

[dannannan]

...would have been an equally valid title.

Re:Global Cooling

[Kreigaffe]

That would be the Unabomber's Shack

Smug!

[autophile]

The drop in ocean level is caused by global warming -- the water evaporated to form huge clouds of smug!

--Rob

CO2 levels

[Anonymous Coward]

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.h tm

damn penguins

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the problem here is that there's too many penguins due to the shrinking polar bear population which is leading to more weight on the ice which causes the ice to rise. duh.

Fossil Fuels are a Single Point of Failure

[mosch]

There are a lot of comments in these threads from people who argue that we shouldn't do anything until we have a known problem. But as any decent tech knows, that's not how you create a reliable system.

If your goal is 24/7/365 operation (and that's surely our goal for society), then you create redundant, reliable alternatives. If those alternatives aren't needed, great. But without those alternatives, you're betting the whole of society on a single point of failure.

The idea that we should wait to develop them is flawed. Do you wait until your net connection goes down before you install a secondary line? Do you wait until your first data center burns down before you install a backup?

The idea that climate and energy requiret less careful treatment than a corporate data center is absurd.

Re:Fossil Fuels are a Single Point of Failure

[ajlea2k]

Do you wait until your net connection goes down before you install a secondary line? Do you wait until your first data center burns down before you install a backup? Unfortunately that is EXACTLY what most people do. Unlike our data or internet connections however, we only get one chance with our planet. I fear that people just aren't taking global threats seriously enough and will only take note when it's too late...

The Precautionary Principle Says Says Use Itself

[Doug Dante]

"The precautionary principle, a phrase first used in English circa 1988, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, then it is better to avoid that action"

Did humans, when first inventing the automobile, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Think ambulances.

Did humans, when inventing computers, use the precautionary principle? No, and we are better off with them. Shut yours off now if you don't believe me.

If we use the precautionary principle, we should halt all genetics resarch until we know the consequences of such research. People will cancer will just have to die.

If we use the precautionary principle, we should stop cutting down trees and making camp fires. No more s'mores! Children will just have to suffer.

But why would we suddenly switch our modus operandi to use this "precautionary principle" when the CONSEQUENCES OF DOING SO ARE UNKONWN?

Therefore, applying the precautionary principle to itself, we find that we should not use it.

Q.E.D.

The Physics

[remnant_x]

By no means am I an expert in the field, but I do have a firm head on my shoulders, and am confused by the lack of any "discussion" section in the BBC report. So here is a part of mine. Although it is common to say that the top of a continuous body of water is all at the same elevation (a fact surveyers use extensevly to reduce costs), that statement is wrong. The tops of water bodies follow an equipotential surface. This means that each top point will have the same potential energy. In small surfaces, such as lakes, the difference between the equipotential surface and the equi-elevation surface is nearly zero, so it is not taken into account. In larger bodies, such as the entirety of north America, or even the world, spherical coordinates are not as useful. Geoids have been used for many years to approximate the equipotential surface on the earth (search NAD27) but even they do not capture the peculiarities that occur with local lead outcroppings or other local density peculairities on the earth. Another coomonly understood fact is that water is most dense at 34 degrees farenheight. A not commonly understood fact is that the global ocean circulation patterns are very slow. Put these three ideas together and one can figure out that it is not the oceans that have been lowering, but that there is more cold water near the polar ice caps then there was before becasue of the increased rate of ice melt. This effect has increased the density of the polar ice cap region and decreased the elevation of local equipotential curve. The decrase in absolute elevation is true, but the equipoential elevation has been rising. If I am wrong on any of this, please correct me. Have a good day.

Re:The Physics

[insensitive_clod]

Only problems I see here are that: 1. Melt water is fresh (and therefore less dense than the seawater is would be displacing) 2. The Artic Ocean (and all the oceans once you go down enough) are already pretty close to that temp (~3C).

Re:Global Cooling

[zippthorne]

Oh how convenient for you.

"Premise is true because of thing I say is true"

thing isn't true..

"Ok, then, but Thing is not true because of previosly unmentioned, but obvious extrapolation of Premise. so, Premise is still true."

One Word...

[Anonymous Coward]

Displacement

Ice Displaces water

The polar ice cap is shrinking.

As the weight of the ice cap decreases, it becomes more bouyant. More of it is above the surface, and therefore the ammount of displaced water is decreased.

I am no scientist, but this is my gut reaction.

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is aggresively, rampantly unfunny.

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

What is one of the ingredients in the Ocean water besides H2O... NACL least i think thats the chemical formula better know as salt... What happens when you pour salt into a glass of water and try to freeze it at 32 degrees... Freezing tempature... It wont freeze since Salt lowers the freezing tempature of water... Now Add more water to the equation by polar melting without adding Salt... Now the freezing tempature of water rises back up again which would be why polar caps are showing an increase of freezing...
Im not a scientist but from taking basic science in school a long time ago it makes some since

"Global Warming" is total bunk

[WebCowboy]

warmer = more evaporation = more water vapor in the air = more heat trapped and so on

It means nothing of the sort my friend. In fact as scientists analyse global climate, they seem to be slowly, subtlely distancing themselves from the theory/term of "Global Warming". Have you noticed that authorities on the subject--even the most ardent supporters of things like the Kyoto initiative--now almost NEVER use the term anymore? The correct term is "Global CLIMATE CHANGE" because EVERYONE agrees that the earth is not universally warming up (some areas are, and others are getting cooler), and they aren't even convinced anymore that the AVERAGE gloabl temperature will continue to steadily rise. What they DO agree upon is that the climate is CHANGING--they point to evidence of changing weather patterns and more "extreme weather"--we'll get more Katrina's in the Gulf of Mexico and huge, freezing blizzards in maritime Canada and expanding deserts in Africa. The general consensus is still that CO2 from human activity exacerbates the problem--it's just that scientists now cover their butts with more general terms like "climate change" because truthfully, NOBODY has a handle on what exactly is going to happen.

The situation might go as you state, but there are a number or drastically different predictions as well:

warmer -> more evapouration -> more cloud formation -> sunlight blocked -> cooler

or ... ... ... -> more cloud formation -> wetter weather -> more vegitation in once barren areas -> more CO2 uptake from vegitation -> less GHG and more O2

or

warmer -> melting polar ice -> lower ocean temperatures -> shifting weather patterns -> more "even" climate (warmer & wetter towards poles, cooler in the equatorial region)

NOBODY knows what will REALLY happen--it is all guesswork (albeit really educated guesswork). Although those who say human activity/CO2 emissions have no notable effect on the planet are generally dismissed as crackpots (and rightly so), the scientific community is finally acknowleging--at least a bit--that they don't know the ultimate effect, which is significant becasue high-profile research organisations really hate to admit they don't know something (almost as much as they hate admitting they're wrong). And here is one to cheer you up--there is a growing contingent of scientists that say "yes, human activity has altered our climate, but the can is open and the worms have long since escaped--we are past the point of fixing things".

Re:"Global Warming" is total bunk

[SnarfQuest]

NOBODY knows what will REALLY happen

Haven't you watched ANY of those informational movies about Global Warming? We all know what's going to happen. The wolves are going to excape from the zoo! We're all doomed at that point.

Re:"Global Warming" is total bunk

[MickLinux]

Actually, I'd think that "Global Warming" is exactly the term, since "warming" describes the addition of heat into a system.

Now, the effect of warming in a simple system (water, 40 degrees F, on a stove) is a rise in temperature. That is because there is essentially one degree of freedom in the system: a change in temperature.

However, as you get to a more complex system (water, 212 degrees F), you get a number of options, including rise in temperature (near the bottom surface), a fall in temperature (near the top surface), and convective currents.

Raise the number of degrees of freedom still more (40 degrees, complex mixture of salt and fresh water, ice, air, and clouds; and currents in all the above; introduction of lifeforms, continental plate statics and dynamics; and so on), and global warming will not be directly tied to temperatures at all. Some parts will get much hotter. Some parts will get much colder. Ice growth will happen in some areas. Increased fuel usage will also happen in some areas, while decreased fuel usage will happen in others. Some lifeforms will be decimated naturally, or by other lifeforms... the list goes on. And all of that is essentially a function of global warming.

You see, temperature is a simple indicator of molecular degrees of freedom, and the degrees of freedom rise as the entropy rises, and the entropy rises as the heat is added (dQ= TdS). But all these other effects are the result of systemic entropy, which isn't well indicated by a single temperature.

Re:Centripetal Force!!

[whitehatlurker]

Oh, and I think you mean centripetal force.

Not likely, since centripetal force is whatever pulls a revolving object inward. Suggesting that it (in this case, gravity) is responsible for lifting water upward at the equator is a bit nonsensical. Centrifugal force, while a technically incorrect term (since it's really the combined effect of angular momentum and inertia), is what does that.

No, the centripetal force, provided as you say by gravity, has to provide the inward acceleration of the water. (Otherwise it separates from the planet.) At the equator the acceleration is highest. (It's the product of the angular velocity [squared] and the radius at the point under consideration, the angular velocity is assumed constant, the radius is maximum at the equator.) So the greatest force (provided by gravity and water depth) is required at the equator to hold the water on. We're going to take gravity as being constant, so the water has to be deepest at the equator.

Too bad there's no -1 Pedantic moderation, eh? ;-)

Global Dimming Prevents...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Rise of A.I.

"It was we who scorched the sky"

It just makes SENSE!

An Inconvenient Truth?

[htns]

Ha! Take that Al Gore!

Earth through the Millenia

[srock2588]

Our little planet has evolved through thick and thin well before we arrived. It has seen global warming and cooling a million times more powerful then humans have managed to muster. Through varying levels of solar radiation, massive releases of volcanic gas, meteor stirkes, and who knows what else Earth has managed to become the fairly stable environment we know today. Should we go full throttle trying to screw it up? No, that would be mean, but I am positive the planet will sort out whatever we have managed to throw at her so far.

Meet the NEW Slashdot

[Hercules Peanut]

This week: Dispelling the Global Warming Myth.

Next week: How Windows Makes You a More Productive Hacker.

SLASHDOT News for Trolls. Stuff that's Corporately Funded

Re:Meet the NEW Slashdot

[Hercules Peanut]

Troll?

Looks like somebody can't take a little good natured ribbing.

Oh well, at least they "Excel" at dishing it out.

two words...

[shekel]

bottled water ;)

huh

[grozzie2]

Ok, so, they are using a radar to measure distances on the order of 800KM. Add to that they are taking measurements of a surface which has lots of irregularity, 10 foot waves are not at all unusual on that stretch of ocean. Add to the mix this little detail that the transmitter and reciever for this signal are doddling along at orbital velocity. Now toss in a few thousand corrections for things like temperature etc. When you are all said and done, draw a conclusion accurate to tenths (or even hundredths) of a millimeter.

Kinda wonder if anybody has heard of 'significant figures'. I also wonder if it's even possible to measure the altitude of a satellite accurate to hundredths of a millimeter ? Wonder what the accuracy of the math routines used to do all the corrections along the way is ?

Good story tho, probably will get them a few hundred thousand dollars in grant money to keep on playing with thier data. That is the objective is it not? Some reactionary press with shock value to keep the money flowing ?

The Inconvienent Truth is...

[WED Fan]

...that most of the global warming crap is just that, crap. Junk science. Once they, anti-capitalist, couldn't sell the global cooling idea in the early 70's (most of you probably don't remember that), they switched to global warming. The idea is to impact the American, or capitalist way of life. WATERMELON is apropo

The Canada Free Press just ran a very interesting article refuting the junk science prefered by the likes of Al Gore.

Re:The Inconvienent Truth is...

[Overly Critical Guy]

What people have to keep in mind is that saving the world is great ("sexy," as Penn & Teller put it), but science is still gathering data. We just don't know if global warming is a natural trend, if it's even occuring (the global temperature record shows that the temperature hasn't risen since 1998), and if there's anything we can do to stop it in the first place. There is a lot of evidence showing that scientists are actually divided about global warming, but many don't want to risk their careers because of the politics involved in speaking out against the alarmist viewpoints of people like Al Gore (who flies around in a gas-guzzling private jet and whose own charts show global warming went up during his time in the Clinton administration).

Re:The Inconvienent Truth is...

[WED Fan]

I also love the "cooling is a sign of warming" argument. Basically, any evidence that points to the opposite is an indication that the opposite is actually happening.

Obligatory Family Guy Quote

[Stardo]

Mayor West: MY GOD! Someone's stealing my water!
Meg: But it just went down the drain.
Mayor West: They hit when you least expect it.
(Waters plant.)
Mayor West: SHOW YOURSELVES, COWARDS! I've spent $1,000 dollars of the tax payers money trying to find these thieves and I'll spend $1,000,000 if that's what it takes!
Meg: You know, I think I have my story.
Mayor West: NO! WAIT! You can't print that! Thank God she's just a figment of my imagination.

wrong again

[TheAxeMaster]

It takes a MASSIVE amount of ice to put even a small amount of it above the water line. That's because the density of ice isn't so much less than that of liquid water. The buoyant force caused by the density difference is only slightly larger than the weight of the ice. That's why icebergs are 90% below the water line and only 10% above (actual figures may vary, but its close to that). The water level WILL go down because the density increases as the ice melts, decreasing the overall volume. Density goes up, volume goes down, basic science class stuff.
 
Lets take an iceberg at 100,000kg. The density of ice is 920kg per cubic meter. So that much ice occupies 108.7 cubic meters. If you assume a 90/10 split, the berg will be 97.8m^3 below the water line. The same mass of water (sea water density is ~1025kg/m^3) occupies 97.6 cubic meters. Overall actual volume drop is ~.2 m^3. That's not much, but considering average icebergs weigh from 100-200,000,000 kg (100x more than the one I used), and there are LOTS of them, it adds up.

It's always getting either warmer or cooler

[ccmay]

Sure, one degree doesn't seem like much... but to an extraordinarily balanced system, it's a big deal.

Pooh. Earth is not nearly so "balanced" as you seem to think. It is always getting either warmer or cooler. Glaciers are always either shrinking or growing. The Earth has been twenty degrees cooler, and twenty degrees warmer, before cavemen tamed fire. Dinosaurs and palm trees once lived in Arctic regions, and there was a time when most of North America lay under ice a mile thick.

The anthropogenic component of global warming that has the Gorebots so scared is mere statistical noise by comparison, if it exists at all.

-ccm

Re:It's always getting either warmer or cooler

[ceejayoz]

I like the link to the ExxonMobil-funded shill. Awesome.

Re:Global Cooling

[ckokotay]

The worst, I mean absolute worst part of all this hysterical "Global Warming" nonsense is that there is no possible way to take the "Global Temperature". "Global Temperature", consists of a scattered network of surface based temperature sensors, with higher concentrations in the Westernized nations (near cities and airports), much less in Africa, The Middle East, Old Soviet republics, etc... In addition to that, the radiosonde network and newer satellite based temperature measurements (since 1979) can measure the lower troposphere temperature. These measurements have shown no discernable change in temperature over the course of this period.

There are several inherent problems with surface data - the first of which is the well known, well documented urban heat island effect, which has nothing whatsoever to do with CO2, and everything to do with the albedo of asphalt, and the release of latent heat. Second, many of the world weather stations are not excessible for data gathering - either due to non-automation, or government protection of the data. So, I do not give a crap what the prevailing 'political consensus' is - there is no evidence whatsoever that there is any warming or cooling trend globally because it cannot be measured - only some hysteria surrounding the CO2 concentration and it's supposed drastic effect on the global mean temperature. And, on top of that, there is a tremendous amount of debate on exactly how much CO2 does actually contribute to warming the lower atmosphere.

So the crux of it, is that we do not have accurate data to feed into already dubious models. Hell, even the short term RUC models, used by the NOAA Storm Prediction Center fail to pinpoint convective initiation quite frequently - and you all think we can predict the climate in 100 years? That is just nuts. Go ahead and have another swog of the grape kool-aid.

Scientist Bio?

[waTR]

Awardee NameSort By Name Scharroo, Remko
AgencySort By Agency NOAA
AdviserSort By Adviser Cheney, Robert Eugene
Satellite Altimetry for Ocean Modeling, Sea Level Change, and Geophysics
Vice President Cheney? I don't think so... does anyone know who this scientist has worked for? What is his history? What has he published and who is he funded by?

It's all relative.

[955301]

I can make the entire thing make sense in a matter of seconds!

Change

Arctic sea level has been falling by a little over 2mm a year - a movement that sets the region against the global trend of rising waters. A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered by Europe's ERS-2 satellite.

to

Europe's ERS-2 satellite has been falling by a little over 2mm a year. A Dutch-UK team made the discovery after analysing radar altimetry data gathered over the Arctic sea level.

Re:It's all relative.

[Anonymous Coward]

If the satelite was falling then the distance to the surface would be getting smaller, making it look like the water was rising. Its unlikely the satelite is rising huh? Anyway, I suspect they could tell if it had been changing altitude or these measurements in general would be pointless.

Re:Global Cooling

[Coryoth]

What are we going to do about these scientists. First they panic about global cooling, then they [anic about global warming. No, wait, they never panicked about global cooling. There was some misplaced panic and hype from the press (but is that a surprise - misplaced panic and hype is the lifeblood of the industry), but there weren't actually any scientists who were worried about an imminent ice age (a few did write articles about the long term (think 10,000 years or so) expectation of a cessation of the current interglacial warm period, but the words "panic" and "imminent" are rather unrelated).

Danger...Warning...

[dinther]

06:43 AM 16 June 2006 - West coast of New Zealand

The alarm has been raised. Civil defence has been mobilised. An event of catastrophic proportions is occuring. Highly accurate monitoring stations along the coast have indicated a sea level fluctuation of 3137mm over a period of 6 hours!

People living near the coast are fleeing to higher ground while riots have broken out in many of the local foodstores where panicked citizens tried to stock up on emergency supplies.

We will report more as events unfold.

Re:Danger...Warning...

[dinther]

10:13 AM 16 June 2006 - West coast of New Zealand

Civil Defence and army is told to stand down. Sea level fluctuation turns out to be the tide which is a natural occuring phenomena not worth to worry about.

You're forgetting a couple of things

[goodben]

The size of the iceberg doesn't matter to what percent of it sticks out of the water, it's always the same. Bigger icebergs have more sticking out on an absolute basis. The ice that sticks out of the water is the "excess volume" caused by the density difference. As the ice melts, the iceberg gets lower in the water (keeping the same percentage of it above). The liquid water level doesn't go down, although the overall level does.

Re:Global Cooling

[Foobar of Borg]

Also, if you read different things that were written about climate change during the late 60's to early 70's, rather than just reading a few Limbaugh-approved articles, you'll find that global warming was the accepted model even then. One book off the top of my head is "The Most Probable World" by Stuart Chase, which was written circa 1966. In it, he mentions (among many other things) the generally well-accepted idea of global warming and the potential effects of a few degrees increase in average global temperature on mankind. Also, Carl Sagan talked some about global warming around, I believe, that time based on his study of the atmospheric conditions of Venus. But, Limbaugh says it's true, so all these idiots start blathering the same lines.

Obvious Explanation

[trongey]

Come on people, this one's easy:
1) Global warming allows more fish to live in the Arctic Ocean.
2) All those new fish are drinking the Arctic Ocean faster than water can flow in to replace it.

No, the increase is fish volume doesn't make up the diffrence. Everybody knows that fish are smaller than oceans.

Duh.

Nice take.

[skids]

That might be a potential winner of a theory.

I was thinking maybe it was something like this here, but then they would know about the currents that would be needed to produce such a thing...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage s/images.php3?img_id=17303

Proof Positive!

[fm6]

The whole global warming thing is bunk! Time to take the Hummer out of mothballs!

Re:Global Cooling

[pete-classic]

I'm glad you are able to cope with what I have to say by lumping me in with someone you don't like. That sounds much easier than resorting to reason.

FYI, I've voted in three presidential elections without voting for the Republican. Hope that doesn't shatter your pathetic world-view.

-Peter

Gilligan moved the stick

[Lije Baley]

Remember that episode of Gilligan's island where the Professor thought the island was sinking, but really Gilligan was just moving his measuring stick?

Re:Global Cooling

[vandon]

"...rather than just reading a few Limbaugh-approved articles... ", he says as his eyes follow the Gore teleprompter while the 'think of the children' crowd cheer him on.

Easily Explained

[Aqua_boy17]

This is easily explained if you think about it. There are less and less Pirates on the high seas. This as we all know, is one of the strongest proofs of global warming. If you take all the pirates and the corresponding amount of water that their ships displace into account, I'm quite sure that this probably accounts for the difference.

Re:Totally off-topic reply here....

[shotfeel]

Cool! Didn' t know about that.

Thanks/1

FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read yesterday that the arctic icepack was growing at an alarming rate. And that while some glaciers were shrinking, others were growing.

Re:Global Cooling

[Foobar of Borg]

I'm glad you are able to cope with what I have to say by lumping me in with someone you don't like. That sounds much easier than resorting to reason.

So, the only part of my post you actually paid attention to was the last line? Brilliant! Anyway, the reason I mentioned Limbaugh is that you are quoting his "reasoning". Now, would you care to respond to the substantive parts of what I and the other person who responded to you wrote? Or, like Limbaugh and others of his ilk, would you rather focus only on the single insult hurled in the midst of everything else as if nothing else was written, thus ignoring the actual substance of the issue?

Re:Global Cooling

[Foobar of Borg]

he says as his eyes follow the Gore teleprompter while the 'think of the children' crowd cheer him on.

Um, I was talking about Carl Sagan and Stuart Chase, and mentioning writings from decades ago. But I guess it's much easier for you to throw out childish attacks based on one snippet than address the substantive part of what was written.

Nope, sorry, you missed it

[snowwrestler]

They are changing their terminology simply because the general public did not get what they were saying. People hear "warming" and they think of spring and butterflies--sounds nice doesn't it?

But what it means in terms of climate is related to the true scientific meaning of the term temperature--a measure of the total energy in a system. "Warming" simply means that more and more energy is being stored by the system. Think of a fly wheel being spun up faster and faster.

EVERYONE agrees that the earth is not universally warming up (some areas are, and others are getting cooler)

Yeah, actually this has been understood from the very beginning. It's not exactly a revelation. When a system stores more energy, the oscillations of the system are like to become greater. Imagine that the flywheel is not well-balanced. The more energy you put into spinning it, the bigger the oscillations will be (both up and down). Now imagine trillions of those flywheels in one machine and you get an idea of the chaotic nature of what we're talking about. Scientists might not be able to predict when it will buck in a certain way, but they can predict an overall increase in activity.

they aren't even convinced anymore that the AVERAGE gloabl temperature will continue to steadily rise.

The annual mean temp rise steadily? Not steadily, no. But it looks like the mean delta over time is going to stay positive for a while.

What they DO agree upon is that the climate is CHANGING--they point to evidence of changing weather patterns and more "extreme weather"--we'll get more Katrina's in the Gulf of Mexico and huge, freezing blizzards in maritime Canada and expanding deserts in Africa.

Everything you just mentioned is driven by stored heat in the atmosphere and oceans. Change can't just happen, it has to be driven by something. In the climate that something is heat.

The general consensus is still that CO2 from human activity exacerbates the problem--it's just that scientists now cover their butts with more general terms like "climate change" because truthfully, NOBODY has a handle on what exactly is going to happen.

That's just not true. There are a ton of open-ended questions but you can build models based on the available data and produce approximations--think of the flywheel machine. Like all science you must qualify the precision of your results and not stretch beyond it (that's true when being critical as well). Luckily the system under study is enormous so even very imprecise results can indicate trends.

Also, you need to understand the physics of the reactions involved. It's not enough to say that CO2 is related to climate change, we need a cause and effect relationship. And there is one--a strong one actually--the "greenhouse effect."

which is significant becasue high-profile research organisations really hate to admit they don't know something

Where do you get that? The whole raison d'etre of high-profile research institutions is to ask the hard questions and seek answers. Their entire existence is based around what they don't know.

Re:Global Cooling

[pete-classic]

So, the only part of my post you actually paid attention to was the last line?

You went to Limbaugh on line two of your post. Don't play the wronged innocent with me, jackass.

-Peter

Re:Global Cooling

[Foobar of Borg]

You went to Limbaugh on line two of your post.

So what? The point, which you have failed to grasp again, is that you ignored everything else that was written. You are truly a master of dumbfuckery.

Another factor in the equation:

[lucienshand]

Many, many moons ago (i.e. sometime in the 80's) I recall watching on some Nature program in which they where gaging the depth of the ice in the Arctic regions by scanning the pollution in the water beneath it that came up from the East coast of America.

So maybe they're struggling with the ecological thermodynamics going on because it's no longer just salt water and ice they're talking about.

Maybe they can't pinpoint CO2 as the sole cause of global warming because it's not the we're doing to cause it.
The global ecosystem is an elaborate thing and we have much more to learn about it.

Re:Global Cooling

[pete-classic]

"So what"? Are you serious? Not, "Gee, I guess I did resort to name calling in the first sentence of my post. Sorry about that. But the point stands, didn't you read Scientific journals in the early '70s?"

Come on, man. Work with me.

-Peter

Arctic or antarctic?

[jonskerr]

IIRC this is in the arctic, which would have no land masses holding up the ice. So it's strictly analagous to the ice cubes in a glass of water taking up less volume than the same amount of water unfrozen.

cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertainty

[Geoff-with-a-G]

They're suggesting things like using less fossil fuels, looking into alternative energy, and reducing pollution and industry waste. I mean you cannot deny that any of these things are positive unless you're an industry shill.

Or unless you have a rudimentary knowledge of economics.

People, countries, and companies are using fossil fuels and producing pollution and waste because it's cheaper than the alternatives. By cheaper, I don't mean "consumes less arbitrary green paper". Money is simply an abstraction for real resources. If a power plant changes to a 20% less efficient generation technology or spends 20% of its productivity cleaning up its output, that's 20% less power for their consumers, which causes the price of that energy to rise until the poorest 20% of the customers can't afford it.

Using fewer fossil fuels is, in and of itself, a good thing, but it has a cost. That cost is measured in billions, if not trillions, of dollars, and represents real impact on both developed and developing nations. To make matters worse, these sort of costs - increase in expense or decrease in availability of common everyday needs like energy - usually hurt the working class more than the rich.

So if it can be shown for sure that the impact of CO2 production is a bigger cost than the "solution", and it's for sure that the proposed amount of CO2 reduction would result in avoiding the climate change problems forseen, then you can get governments on board with taking serious action. It's still going to be challenging to structure those costs and provoke those actions, but at least you'd have the sort of support you're looking for.

In the meantime, since we can't say for 95% sure that our CO2 production is causing the problem, and we can't say for 95% sure that the problem is worse than the solution, and we can't say for 95% sure that the proposed solution would really solve the problem, the people in charge keep talking about how "there's still debate, we're not sure, and we think we should proceed modestly."

Not really a surprise

[dublin]

This shouldn't really be a surprise - after all, it's been known for several years that the water level of the oceans is going down, due to the "leaky seas" phenomenon. See New Scientist article from a few years ago at http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16322030.200 .html (used to be free, but no longer), or a CNN summary at the time: http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9909/17/leaky.seas.enn/i ndex.html

No one knows why - forming mineral hydrates, some other form of leaking into the earth itself, or global cooling - it's all speculation right now, just like global warming. The truth: The world is a complex place and we're not even close to understanding it.

BTW: Remember when "all the world's climate experts" warned of global cooling and an impending ice age only around 30 years ago? (Which would, of course, require many of the same environmental policy changes wanted by the global warming crowd now.) Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Re:Not really a surprise

[evilviper]

BTW: Remember when "all the world's climate experts" warned of global cooling and an impending ice age only around 30 years ago?

Actually, there was a lot of thruth to that. The particulates in pollution were causing global dimming.

However, the stronger pollution controls were instated not because of global dimming, but because people don't like smog, and they don't like developing lung cancer and other serious/fatal diseases.

So, if you'd like your smog and diseases back, we can take care of global warming pretty easily.

Water expands when it freezes

[Hibernator]

Here's a possible explanation: When water freezes it forms hydrogen bonds that produce a crystalline structure that is less dense than water (this is why water ice floats). In a body of water near the freezing point there will be many water molecules constantly moving in and out of this fozen state (because of local temperature fluxuations). Therefore as you warm such a body of water you would expect fewer and fewer water molecules to be cool enough to bond together temporarily in a less dense crystalline fashion. In other words, as you warm a body of water that's near the freezing point, it should become less dense, and shrink.

Re:Water expands when it freezes

[jelle]

"it should become less dense, and shrink."

Umm, if it becomes less dense, it expands... Another way to explain it: It would need a higher column of lower-density water to counter the pressure from the higher-density water...

Re:Water expands when it freezes

[Hibernator]

"it should become less dense, and shrink."

Umm, if it becomes less dense, it expands...

Doh! What I meant to say was that it should be come more dense, and shrink. Time to recaffeinate, I guess...

Re:cost-benefit analysis in the face of uncertaint

[tthomas48]

Yes, that's correct. But what are the risks of being wrong? We all know that we have to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels no matter how cheap they may be. We know that as we have denser cities we have to work harder to keep air polution levels low (see also the black smog that covered London in the mid twentieth century). So you're saying that I'm not doing the correct cost-benifit analysis. But your analysis is exceedingly short-term. And at a certain point you have to say - is it more important that our poor can drive gas guzzlers, or that they have decent lifespans because we've cleaned up air pollution? There are always costs. Economics focuses far too often on the industrial costs, but there are other massive costs. What are the costs to the US economy providing Asthma and Allergy care, especially indegent care? Of treating various cancers? Of birth defects? Why is it that health care costs are skyrocketing even as the cost of everything from transistors to paper is dropping? What are the costs to the economy of having workers stuck in cars for 2 hours of unproductive commute time every day? Couldn't we have more productive rested workers, who could potentially work during their commute with better public transportation with network connectivity?
The real question you have to ask, is what happens to the US economy when our extreme waste starts catching up with us? It has to catch up with us. There are basic laws of physics involved here. We can't have more matter than we start with. We can't have everyone in India, China, Canada, Europe, and the United States living at the same standard of living that the US is now. There simply aren't enough resources to go around. The markets are going to hurt the poor dispraportionatly however this shakes out (and quite frankly the markets are always hurting the poor). It's our job to elect politicians and start moving the government into the future. The free market won't do it for us.

Re:Global Cooling

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but when you have a four digit UID, you can get modded up for posting anything.

seems there's an easy answer

[plbg32]

water under an ice sheet is at or near freezing temps. water is most dense,takes up less space, at 39 degrees farenheit. so as the water warms from at or near freezing it becomes more dense till the water reaches 39 degrees. now the scary part comes with the oceans. as we pass this most dense point the water starts to expand rapidly, leading to much higher ocean levels. so what is occuring now is deceptive and will cause arguments that global warming is not occuring. but then i'm just a plumber what do i know....

Centrifugal Force

[loki_tiwaz]

I apologise if I am repeating something someone else said in the 200+ comments on this post, but here goes anyway. Some of you may be aware that the earth is in a constant axial spin about the poles. This spin naturally has caused the entire planet to become a squashed ball shape rather than a perfect sphere. Sea levels rising will therefore affect the equator the most and the poles - well, as this new data suggests, will have the opposite effect. This is because the mobile water content of the surface is becoming heavier and thus more prone to the axial distrotion. And while I'm commenting on the subject, I would just like to put forward an idea i had last year relating to this topic - the chemists amongst us may be aware that when hydrocarbons burn they form roughly equal amounts of water as carbon dioxide. Specifically, natural gas (methane) is: CH4 + 2O2 --> 2H2O + CO2 This means natural gas is producing twice as much water vapour as carbon dioxide. The longer the hydrocarbon chain the closer the ratio approaches 1:1. When I was thinking about these things it occurred to me that there has been little attention in climate change science to the effect of this added atmospheric water. Another factor which is related to this is that the ionosphere has been found to be dropping downward towards the earth. Both carbon dioxide and water are heavier-than-air, and this is because they are denser, thus causing a shrinking of the atmosphere. Much of that water coming out the tailpipes of cars is ending up in the ocean. The overall effect of this increasing atmospheric density is manifold and the effects depend on the degree of local production of these emissions. One key effect is that it is increasing the refractive index of the atmosphere, which is increasing the amount of captured light, especially around the poles because they maintain a relatively constant orientation towards the sun. When my mind started wandering down this path of speculation I became quite convinced that the rate of change has been dramatically underestimated because even if you just count this extra factor of increased atmospheric water a whole mountain of other effects appear.

Simple explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Both the rise and the drop are within the margin of error for the measurements.

That means it's a non-issue. Like Global Warming, it's just a way to sell more advertizing by worrying people uselessly. Let's have a little real science, not more TRUE SCIENCE. (Read Junk Science).

someone mod this link up please

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

The above show answers that dude's speculation. Research from the 90's is just now hitting the news. The comment is not "+5 insightful" it's ignorant. The earth has been dimming due to small particulates from pollution. Causing more clouds, which reflects solar radiation back into space. Particulate pollution has been protecting us from higher ground temperatures. It also causes weather to change. .making droughts in some areas while producing floods in others. Either way the earth *is* warming, albeit slower because of particulate pollution. Estimates based on *science* show that global warming would be over 1 degree C if not for the dimming effect. Ironically, the cleaner our emissions, the faster the Earth will warm.

Globally, solar radiation has dropped between 15 and 30%, this has been confirmed by different sources using different means. . . AND THE EARTH IS STILL GETTING WARMER.

Re:Global Cooling

[loki_tiwaz]

yes, this point is worth noting - and to add to the error-prone measuring systems, changes in atmospheric and ocean density due to ice melts and increased atmospheric CO2 and H2O from hydrocarbon burning will be adding discrepancies to height measurements both upwards into the atmosphere and downwards into the ocean floor.

And if the atmosphere is becoming denser (this is probably one of the few reliably measurable things via the use of a refractometer), on average, then this is going to increased the amount of heat captured by the sun due to total internal reflection. The increased water levels and carbon dioxide levels are also going to increase the amount of latent heat in the atmosphere (which will not be observed by temperature measuring devices, unless they are calibrated against a refractometer).

It is my opinion that there simply is not enough factors in the models, the deforestation raises albedo reflection, the hydrocarbon burning increases atmospheric density via water and carbon dioxide emissions (and sulphur and nitrates also add their contribution to this problem)

didn't you know?

[sentientbrendan]

it's because the earth
is spinning faster

I've got one!

[PapayaSF]

Then why are polar bears drowning in record numbers?

Accidents while trying to evade nature photographers.

New terminology proposal

[Atario]

The correct term is "Global CLIMATE CHANGE"

I think we should call it "Global Screwing With Things That Might Wipe Us All Out".

Dynamics

[jlehtira]

Reading the article should give some clues about it.. I'd say that a satellite-radar-based method wouldn't really care about isostatic rebound one bit.

The ocean cannot be above the geode in one part of the world and below it in another _by definition_. At least not on average over a year.

Sure it can. I don't really see any problems with this. For example the air pressure has an important effect on the sea level, and if the surface air pressure is strengthening on average, that should well enough push the water down (or, rather, elsewhere). Air pressure could be rising following a rise in temperatures. Temperature could have a direct effect or an indirect one - maybe the increased melting results in more evaporation -> bigger air pressure. Of course air pressure can locally rise on average because of some obscure weather pattern too. The problem with the polar region is that we don't really have a good amount of pressure gauges around there.

In any case one shouldn't just assume that water follows gravity "by definition". There's another weather system going on below the surface. Maybe the Gulf stream is weakening and, in a sense, that causes less water to "pile up" in the Arctic? Or the cold fresh water currents down from the pole are doing something funny as they're growing stronger? Maybe the saline bottom currents are not, for whatever reason, properly matching the now-stronger fresh water currents?

Even these ideas are very simple while real weather systems are rather complex. I'd like to see many many different simulations about it :). Simulation really seems to be the only way to predict what will happen in these kinds of problems.

The obvious cause ...

[JunkMan1989]

Global warming, receding ice pack, but the ocean is falling. Someone has a serious water retension problem.

You've missed alot too

[WebCowboy]

Yeah, actually this has been understood from the very beginning.

The beginning of what? When I was a youngster in school I remember watching a 16mm film in science class that proclaimed something to the effect of "recent research using sophisticated computer models have predicted that pollution from factories and smog from cars would reduce the amount of energy from the sun that reaches the earths surface, leading to a cooling trend and perhaps the early onset of another ice age".

We all know that is CRAP, and not only has it not been understood since the beginning, we are still trying to understand it now.

The annual mean temp rise steadily? Not steadily, no. But it looks like the mean delta over time is going to stay positive for a while.

The thing is, we do not have accurate data for long enough time to make any positive assertions about the global, annual mean temperature because we have only had the means to measure it properly for a couple/few decades--we don't have weather sattelite data from the 19th century and earlier to see what was happening during pre-industrial society so we can compare it to industrial (and post-industrial) society. In terms of climate change, "a while" is a lifetime or more, and we cannot take 30 years of data and confidently say that in another 100 years things will look a certain way, whether it be hotter or cooler, steady or erratic. You cannot look at old pre-WW2 terrestrial weather station data, tree rings and layers of glacial ice and *accurately* determine the average global temperature that can be compared with data collected with modern technology.

Everything you just mentioned is driven by stored heat in the atmosphere and oceans. Change can't just happen, it has to be driven by something.

Storage and transfer of heat doesn't just drive global climate--it is BASICALLY THE DEFINITION OF CLIMATE in terms of global weather. All the heat in and on the earth ultimately originated from energy captured from our sun, and there are countless factors determining how much (and what type of) energy is captured, stored and released by the planet. CO2 in the atmosphere is one single factor--other GHGs like methane are another. Particulates yet another--and that is just atmosphere. What about large geothermal events (volcanoes and such) that release long-trapped energy and gases in huge amounts, in very short times? Mt St Helens, Mt Pinatubo and such released heat, particulates and "air pollution" within weeks that humans produce in years, so such events have impacts just as much as human activity.

There are a ton of open-ended questions but you can build models based on the available data and produce approximations--think of the flywheel machine [...] Luckily the system under study is enormous so even very imprecise results can indicate trends.

The earth is not a flywheel machine--it is even more complex than a million flywheels of all sizes and shapes, on axles loaded with springs attached to gears driving other flywheels, and forces putting the brakes on one while forcing others to spin, and we are producing approximations based on 10 percent of them. They might be quite accureatem but then again they might be wrong too (when we did approximations on one percent we thought we were heading ito an ice age--remember?). Also, you can indicate trends on as little as two points of data, but how accurate are they? We have many more points to work with but they're still pretty scattered and the accuracy of older data is sometimes questionable.

Also, you need to understand the physics of the reactions involved. It's not enough to say that CO2 is related to climate change, we need a cause and effect relationship. And there is one--a strong one actually--the "greenhouse effect."

Sure but the greenhouse effect is only one effect on heat transfer/storage/movement. There are other effects that counteract this. What about changes in vegitation brought about by higher CO2 levels and changin

I shall only become more powerful

[Maximilio]

If you mod me down 'Troll' when what I've actually done is very pointedly dissected the parent argument, you're telling me I've struck a nerve. I will continue to do so.

Re:Could Be A Number Of Things - part (n+1)

[hicksw]

Increased salinity? Less ice pack, more evaporation, increased salinity, higher density, lower elevation.

No evidence was harmed or disturbed by this response.

Vapor

[Mark_MF-WN]

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas though. It is transparent to light until it forms clouds. And as temperatures increase, the atmosphere can hold more vapour without forming clouds.

You're short on real info

[snowwrestler]

Although long on analysis and thinking. I'll point out one single mistake as an example:

Mt St Helens, Mt Pinatubo and such released heat, particulates and "air pollution" within weeks that humans produce in years, so such events have impacts just as much as human activity.

This is wrong by about a factor of 10--human activity currently puts far more gases into the atmosphere per year than any volcano in recorded history. This is very possible to measure both by direct measurement of the gas output of the volcano, and by regular and distributed isotopic and mass balance analysis of the atmosphere.

Your post simply boils down to this: you realize that the climate is extremely complex and you can't imagine how it's possible to model something so complex. Unfortunately you don't seem to have any information or experience with the current state of the science, not to mention its progression over the past 30 years. We have much more data, and much better tools for analysis, than scientists in the 1970s, leading to much better understanding of the climate. And it gets better every year. While the complexity of the climate remains constant, our ability to gather and analyse data improves continuously--increasing the reliability of our models and conclusions.

Close.

[mmell]

Water hits its maximum density at 4C (39F). In fact, it's the only fluid I know of which achieves its maximum density while still a liquid (although cooled sufficiently, -60C I think, manages to exceed its density at 4C).

Global Air Pollution

[Pometacom]

Global air pollution is my preferred term because it is accurate, easy to understand and hard to deny. Just look at a satellite photo of China. It's a big haze of brown gloop. That brown gloop is a huge, new source of anthropogenic SO2, nitrous oxides, CO2, soot etc. If it were coming from a volcano, people would say "Wow look at all that brown gloop spewing into the atmosphere from that volcano crater." But because the brown gloop is man-made, lots of people say ... "what brown gloop?" ... as if it didn't exist. Or argue whether sufficient evidence exists to conclusively show that the brown gloop actually "does anything bad." At least in the 1970s most everyone agreed that brown gloop belching out of smokestacks is air pollution and is not good. Now, 35 years later, we have to argue endlessly whether air pollution is even "pollution." The brown gloop hasn't changed in 35 years. It's just that the rhetorical spew has become gloopier than the gloop. Bloop.