World temps maintain the heat of global warming

Nov 29, 2011 By ARTHUR MAX , Associated Press
A worker pulls a refuse bin as he and others clean up the beach area in Durban, South Africa, Tuesday, Nov 29, 2011. The U.N. weather office says world temperatures maintained a long-term upward trend and Arctic sea ice shrank to record low volumes this year. The report by the International Meteorological Organization, released in Geneva and at the U.N. climate talks Tuesday, provided a bleak backdrop to negotiators seeking ways to limit pollution blamed for global warming. (AP Photo/Schalk van Zuydam)

2011 is currently tied for the 10th hottest since records began in 1850 and Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record-low volumes this year, the U.N. weather office said Tuesday.

The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years, IMO's deputy director R.D.J. Lengoasa told reporters on the sidelines of the U.N. under way in South Africa.

"The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," Lengoasa said. Human activity was a significant contributor to this trend, he said.

"Climate change is real, and we are already observing its manifestations in weather and around the world," he said.

The preliminary report by the International Meteorological Organization is based on the first 10 months of the year.

It was released in Geneva and at the U.N. in South Africa, provided a bleak backdrop to negotiators who are seeking ways to limit pollution blamed for global warming.

2011 has been a year of , the weather service said. Parching drought in East Africa has left tens of thousands dead, and there have been deadly floods in Asia, and 14 separate weather catastrophes in the United States with damage topping $1 billion each.

saturated the Earth despite a La Nina event, when low in the equatorial Pacific Ocean has a cooling effect on the entire globe, the IMO said.

In an exhaustive study of extreme weather, the authoritative reported this month that such events will increase in frequency and intensity as the Earth continues to warm.

The IMO said the extent of in 2011 was the second-lowest on record, and its volume was the lowest. Scientists see the Arctic as the planet's most sensitive region and a barometer of the future.

The largest departure from the norm occurred in northern Russia, where thermometers soared and average 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit (4 degrees Celsius) above average in some places, and some stations reporting spring weather 16 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) above normal.

The Russian Arctic and most of Siberia hold massive amounts of methane locked into the permafrost, carbon-rich soil that never thaws. Warmer summer temperatures mean a deeper thaw of permafrost and greater release of methane, a gas with a global warming potential 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.

The report came on the second day of the two-week conference in this South African coastal city attended by 192 parties seeking agreement on future action to curb climate change.

The talks will determine whether industrial countries will renew and expand their commitments under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to reduce their greenhouse emissions and whether developing countries will accept binding limits on their emissions in the future.

Negotiators also are discussing how to raise $100 billion a year to help poor countries move to low-carbon economies and cope with the effects of .

Explore further: Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

4.3 /5 (15 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Mercury busts charts; 2010 in top 3 hottest years

Dec 02, 2010

(AP) -- A scorching summer that killed thousands in Russia and exceptionally mild winters in the Arctic were among extreme weather events that have put 2010 on track to be one of the three hottest years on record, U.N. experts ...

Greenland ice melts most in half-century: US

Jun 28, 2011

Greenland's ice sheet melted the most it has in over a half century last year, US government scientists said Tuesday in one of a series of "unmistakable" signs of climate change.

Climate: which nations, cities most at risk?

Oct 26, 2011

A third of humanity, mostly in Africa and South Asia, face the biggest risks from climate change but rich nations in northern Europe will be least exposed, according to a report released Wednesday.

La Nina returns, bringing more severe weather: US

Sep 08, 2011

The weather phenomenon known as La Nina is returning for another season, likely bringing more drought, heavy rains and severe weather to some parts of the world, US forecasters said Thursday.

June Earth's hottest ever: US monitors

Jul 15, 2010

Last month was the hottest June ever recorded on Earth, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said Thursday, amid global climate warming worries.

Recommended for you

Halliburton pays $1.1 bn for Gulf of Mexico BP spill

13 hours ago

Oil services company Halliburton said Tuesday it would pay a $1.1 billion settlement over its role in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil rig blowout that led to the United States' most disastrous oil spill.

Underwater grass comeback bodes well for Chesapeake Bay

14 hours ago

The Susquehanna Flats, a large bed of underwater grasses near the mouth of the Susquehanna River, virtually disappeared from the upper Chesapeake Bay after Tropical Storm Agnes more than 40 years ago. However, ...

Clean air halves health costs in Chinese city

16 hours ago

Air pollution regulations over the last decade in Taiyuan, China, have substantially improved the health of people living there, accounting for a greater than 50% reduction in costs associated with loss of life and disability ...

User comments : 69

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

LVT
2 / 5 (29) Nov 29, 2011
Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (21) Nov 29, 2011
Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud.

They have numbers, statistics, measurements, simulations and expertise.

You have a gut feeling.

They win. You lose.
Guy_Underbridge
3.2 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2011
and faith! You forgot about faith, AP.
ryggesogn2
2.9 / 5 (19) Nov 29, 2011
"Climate change is real"
Of course it is. It has been happening for millions of years.
Shelgeyr
2.1 / 5 (26) Nov 29, 2011
The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming...


Oh yeah? Prove it. Oh wait... They can't. They "lost" the station data, and can't back up any of their assertions.

@antialias_physorg said:
They have numbers, statistics, measurements, simulations and expertise.


Actually, they don't have the numbers, the statistics are meaningless without them, ditto the "measurements", their simulations are worthless (but hey - don't take my word for that - how about their own internal disputes?) and at this point their "expertise" should be considered laughable and/or criminal fraud.

However, in the end you are probably right about one thing... "They win. You lose." But not because they deserve to win, oh no, but because their fraud reaches the highest levels of government so they'll probably never have justice done to them.

Sad, really.
Shelgeyr
2 / 5 (20) Nov 29, 2011
This was written nearly three years ago, and is sadly still very true: http://www.number...ying.htm
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2011
Shelley...The US has 300,000,000 people. In 2008 they had 256,000,000 passenger vehicles on the road. 80% of the population is able to enjoy a hot shower at the end of the day....everyday. Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers? Not just with CO2, but particulate pollution, the food and water demands, raw material requirments...finding ways to reduce each persons carbon foot print translates into better overall management of resources both renewable and non....
3432682
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 29, 2011
"Warmest on record"? What record? Does it go back to the Medieval Warming Period? The Roman warming? The Minoan? Does it look at the last 10,000 years, to see that we are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age? I call BS. This is pure deceptive politics, not science.
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 29, 2011
@rubberman asked:
Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers?


Yes. But only under certain circumstances which are not "earth" determined, per se. The Earth, believe it or not, and I suspect you probably won't, isn't the inate limiter we've all been lead to believe. It is finite, yes, but FAR more bountiful than we're currently exploiting (and I'm using "exploiting" in a good way here).

Sadly, the reasons for this are political, and if you had asked the same question with this phrase appended: "... and with our current political climate?" then my answer would be "No, probably not, but that's not the Earth's fault, nor a manifestation of its finiteness."
Shelgeyr
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2011
@rubberman also said:
finding ways to reduce each persons carbon foot print translates into better overall management of resources both renewable and non.


I disagree. And I'm not saying you're lying, I'm saying you're incorrect. And please understand that I'm not advocating the opposite either. I don't think we should go around polluting as much as we can, or burning down the forests just to watch the pretty sparks.

But "reducing your carbon footprint" shouldn't even be on the radar. It is pointless. It is smoke and mirrors covering a hideous agenda. MUCH better that we not waste resources for the simple reason that doing so is WASTEFUL.

We will naturally have arguments over what is wasteful behavior and what isn't, as well as whether or not it is anybody's business if someone else is wasteful with THEIR OWN resources, but we don't need the fantasy fear of Global Warming, promoted by frauds, to remind sound minds that not being a wastrel is a good thing.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 29, 2011
We will naturally have arguments over what is wasteful behavior and what isn't, as well as whether or not it is anybody's business if someone else is wasteful with THEIR OWN resources,

Precisely, THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces.
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2011
Again, referencing when @rubberman asked:
Do you think the earth can handle China, India and Africa having the same per capita numbers?


Are you suggesting that in regards to China, India and Africa we should put our efforts towards denying them the benefits of modern civilization - to "keep them down" in other words - just to maybe, possibly, if some of our models are correct, spare ourselves a couple of degrees change over the next century? That would be pretty low of you.

However, I doubt that's actually your position.

If I'm right and it isn't, and since a chain of reasoning can take you to that destination, I'd politely suggest you rethink your position all the way through to its logical end.

Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2011
But "reducing your carbon footprint" shouldn't even be on the radar. It is pointless. It is smoke and mirrors covering a hideous agenda. MUCH better that we not waste resources for the simple reason that doing so is WASTEFUL.

What exactly is the difference between 'not being wasteful' and 'reducing your carbon footprint'? Not being wasteful IS a method of reducing your carbon footprint.

The point here is that the buffer systems on Earth (atmosphere, oceans, biomass) aren't limitless. Once they are full then any additional input will have immediate and much more drastic results.

Put start filling reservoir with a pipe that comes out the top. As long as the reservoir keeps filling up you don't notice much except air escaping the output hose. But once it's full you get sprayed. Massively.

All data indicates that the Earth's buffer systems are nearing overflow capacity.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2011
Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.

That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.
Shelgeyr
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2011
@antialias_physorg asked:
What exactly is the difference between 'not being wasteful' and 'reducing your carbon footprint'? Not being wasteful IS a method of reducing your carbon footprint.


They're not the same thing at all, although of course they can overlap, especially in a limited view. However, circumstances exist where "not being wasteful" would equate with having a larger carbon footprint - like where the savings from not being wasteful with energy (let's say you updated your old factory furnaces for example) let you afford to expand your production line and produce more goods, resulting in increased profits, some of which are plowed back into further facility upgrades, ultimately resulting in a vastly increased footprint from a larger and growing company who is more efficient with the energy they use than they had previously been. Oh, and they produce more jobs and taxes too. So "footprint", if on the priority list at all, should be pretty low on the list.
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2011
@antialias_physorg stated:
All data indicates that the Earth's buffer systems are nearing overflow capacity.


Careful with that "all" there... because that just isn't true. Some data indicate that, yes. Other data counter that argument.

Just one example out of I have no idea how many: We still have rocky "young" mountain ranges all over the planet, and "chemical weathering" apparently sinks an awful lot of carbon. As far as I can tell, the quantity is very much in dispute, and is hard to gauge, but it isn't incidental.

Your reservoir metaphor isn't relevant because you have no idea what the degree of basement fracturing there is, how many subterranean outlets exist, how many springs the reservoir feeds, or whether the flow from those springs will increase as the surrounding towns only ever seem to increase their draw. Nor whether the overflow result you stated (getting massively sprayed) is A) what would actually happen, or B) such a bad thing.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2011
Just one example out of I have no idea how many: We still have rocky "young" mountain ranges all over the planet, and "chemical weathering" apparently sinks an awful lot of carbon.

You seem to be referring to carbonation. Note that this process slows down with rising temperatures - so it isn't a buffer system.
Even if it were a to matter in any significant way, then we would be seeing less action in all the other buffer systems - but we aren't.
rubberman
4.1 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2011
Well Shel, I didn't mean to make it sound like an us vs them situation. It was an attempt to point out the numbers involved. The two countries and one continent I named encompass over half of the worlds population and are in the early stages of Industrial and infra-structure development (compared to North America)Granted China has come as far in the last 25 years as we did in the last 60, they still have 10 more years of catching up to, India 15-20. The earth IS finite in it's resources and it's ability to absorb the ecological blow we've been delivering as an industrialized species, now the countries with the highest populations are STARTING to attempt to live how we do. I also beleive that AGW is real but that is a circular debate on this forum so, if Physorg is still operating in 2040 and were both around, one of us will get to say I told ya so. Other environmental stresses will catch up with us as a race long before AGW does the damage it's capable of doing.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 29, 2011
Otherwise it sounds pretty tribal, in an "us vs. those jerks on the other side of the river" kind of way.
@ryggesogn2 That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.
Not socialism. Sociology.

Precisely, THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces.
No the "free market forces" aka loansharking imperialists determine a PRICE, not a value. For example the helium in your party balloons is worth a $100 to society and science as they are irreplaceable, in a single reservoir. The trees and plants in the rainforest could cure cancer but they are burned for the PRICE of firewood or worse for rangeland. The value of people in Africa is uncountable they are PRICED out of existence.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2011
Apparently the Deinailist Tard couldn't make it to the first sentence in the article..

"The 13 hottest years on the books all have occurred in the last 15 years"

"Climategate v2. CAGW is a fraud." - LVTardboy

grgfraiser
3.6 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2011
I don't get it, does it matter that much either way how it happened? It is here and it effects US ALL. Like we are not going to take the needed steps to fix it and reign in ALL causes? I doubt we will stand by, this is our species we are ultimately talking about. So whether it is us or a natural cycle in the earths climate something needs to be done. If any thing i would like clean and carcinogen free air and water.
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2011
Per http://www.guardi...ice-melt August artic sea ice is down about 40% in the last 30 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2011
Arctic sea ice is still 700,000 kilometers low for this time of year.

Volume is crashing.
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2011
@R2,
That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow.


Apparently the pie does grow if your a bank. See this: http://www.youtub...b0UFhKEc

Sorry off topic.

Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Nov 30, 2011
This discussion about politics sounds more like wishfull thinking to me.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
Since the pie is the earth, and the last time I looked, the earth isn't growing, all rational, thinking people must conclude that the pie isn't growing.

How fast is the planet growing in your confused Libertarian/Randite universe?

"That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow." - RyggTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2011
"Are you suggesting that in regards to China, India and Africa we should put our efforts towards denying them the benefits of modern civilization" - Shelgeyr

Since what you deem modern civilization to be is scientifically unsustainable, the answer would have to be yes wouldn't it.

To answer no would mean mass death as the natural limits imposed by nature ensure that consumption returns to levels of sustainability.

So the choice is not between modern civilization and otherwise. The choice is between living within your means, or environmental bankruptcy.

It is no coincidence that the same conservative Political mindset that has chosen to bankrupt it's own Nation through conservative borrow and spend practices, also is selecting to environmentally bankrupt future generations through levels of consumption that are environmentally unsustainable.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (13) Nov 30, 2011
"THEIR OWN resources whose value is determined by free market forces." - RyggTard

"Free market" is a code phrase for unregulated graft and corruption.

That is why fascist Libertarian/Randites spend their days promoting it.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2011
The following graphic proves you to be a liar.

http://www.eh-res...ions.jpg

"Does it look at the last 10,000 years, to see that we are cooler now than 80-90% of the time since the last ice age?" - 3432682
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2011
Your link has absolutely zero scientific content, and absolutely any factual content.

It does nothing more than express a faith that the science is wrong that is no different than the faith of any other fact free QuackTard Denialist.

"This was written nearly three years ago, and is sadly still very true" - Shelgeyr
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (10) Nov 30, 2011
Your ignorance of science is quite spectacular.

Denialists demand proof ignorant of the fact that science never provides proof of anything.

Science isn't in the proof business, and never has been.

So your demand is either pure ignorance or pure deception.

Which is it?

"Oh yeah? Prove it. Oh wait... They can't." - Shelgeyr

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2011
Ya, it's all a conspiracy against you.

A conspiracy consisting of 98% of all of the worlds scientists, NASA, the NOAA, CRU, JAXA the IPCC, the Royal Society, the Chemical Society, and virtually every other science organization.

Is is only the American Republican party that is not part of the conspiracy against you.

Moron.

""They win. You lose." But not because they deserve to win, oh no, but because their fraud reaches the highest levels of government so they'll probably never have justice done to them." - Shelgeyr
FrankHerbert
1.1 / 5 (54) Nov 30, 2011
http://karws.gso....yle.html

"The Paranoid Style in American Politics" by Richard Hofstadter

"Paranoid writing begins with certain broad defensible judgments. There was something to be said for the anti-Masons. After all, a secret society composed of influential men bound by special obligations could conceivable pose some kind of threat to the civil order in which they were suspended. There was also something to be said for the Protestant principles of individuality and freedom, as well as for the nativist desire to develop in North America a homogeneous civilization. Again, in our time an actual laxity in security allowed some Communists to find a place in governmental circles, and innumerable decisions of World War II and the Cold War could be faulted."
omatumr
1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
World temps maintain heat of global warming


The public is becoming increasingly aware that government science has been molded into a tool of propaganda for misuse by world leaders.

More and more scientists are speaking out, e.g., Professor David H. Douglass of the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester:

www.pas.rochester...shed.pdf

www.thegwpf.org/i...orms.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

http://ngm.nation...dex.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

Dissent will not be squashed by passage of the National Defense Authorization Act bill that the US Senate is set to vote on today or later this week:

http://www.infowa...he-ndaa/

With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
omatumr
1.1 / 5 (11) Nov 30, 2011
The National Defense Authorization Act:

"requires the military to dedicate a significant number of personnel to capturing and holding terrorism suspects in some cases indefinitely even those apprehended on U.S. soil. And they authorize the military to do so regardless of an accused terrorists citizenship, even if he or she is an American captured in a U.S. city."

That may be used against scientists who criticized world leaders and leaders of the scientific community for joining forces with the climate scientists that fudged global temperature data.

See today's news in:

1. Slate:

www.slate.com/art...ns_.html

2. Canadian Free Press:

www.canadafreepre...le/42805

3. Huffington Post:

www.huffingtonpos...166.html
omatumr
1.3 / 5 (12) Nov 30, 2011
Earths climate changes because Earth's heat source is unstable and has always changed.

www.pas.rochester...shed.pdf

www.thegwpf.org/i...orms.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0905.0704

http://ngm.nation...dex.html

http://arxiv.org/.../0501441

For four decades government scientists hid or ignored experimental data and observations in order to promote the illusion that CO2 caused climate change:

Deep roots of the global climate scandal (1971-2011)

http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf

That propaganda was designed to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy - global climate change - and to equalize the standard of those living under a one world government.
Doom1974
3.7 / 5 (7) Dec 01, 2011
Yeah you Omatard. However the solar activity has been decreasing while temperatures have been increasing. Explain that tard. Otherwise keep your mouth shut.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (4) Dec 01, 2011
Vendicar_Decarian: ...http://www.eh-res...ions.jpg

Note the slope of the latest point on this graph is so high you can't even see it on this chart.

Nanobanano
2.8 / 5 (6) Dec 03, 2011
at this point their "expertise" should be considered laughable and/or criminal fraud


You're an idiot.

Do you know how good the NWS and our universities have become at modeling weather and climate?

Instruments are triple redundant, and we have infrared satellites to help calibrate and adjust for urban heat island effects, if anything else fails.

That propaganda was designed to unite nations against an imaginary common enemy - global climate change


I guess all the lowly farmers are in on the conspiracy, right? After all, growing seasons have changed noticeably around the world.

If there's a conspiracy, at least 10% of the world population must be in on it.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (7) Dec 03, 2011
@Nanobanano said:
Do you know how good the NWS and our universities have become at modeling weather and climate?


Yes, actually. "Piss poor" comes to mind.

They're so good at it that they have to lie, cover up, threaten, and conspire in order to maintain their epic fraud.

Instruments are triple redundant, and we have infrared satellites to help calibrate and adjust for urban heat island effects, if anything else fails.


Really? What great news! Perhaps they'll release the station data then. We've been waiting a long, long time after all. In the meantime, why should anyone accept that their calibrations and adjustments are anything other than biased to support their fraud?

The lowly farmers are not part of the conspiracy - they're a victim of it. See also "Delta Smelt".

If there's a conspiracy, at least 10% of the world population must be in on it.


Really? Please show the data behind this statement.
Nanobanano
3 / 5 (4) Dec 03, 2011
Shelgeyr:

Farmers plant crops earlier and later in the seasons respectively than ever before, proving the climate has in fact changed.
HROLLER
1 / 5 (3) Dec 03, 2011
Has anyone ever heard of "HAARP" and "weather modification"???

sincedutch.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/want-to-know-about-haarp-vlf-uhf-and-weather-modification-want-to-prove-it-to-a-non-believer-here-you-go/
tysoncable
3 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2011
sustainability. responsibility. and opportunity.

regardless of the true answer to whether global warming is occurring above natures normal cycling, due to human pollution, why dont you geniuses argue why we shouldnt be sensible and acting according to the worst case scenario. To make use of the opportunity of emerging green technologies, innovation and political alignment. To act responsibly, aiming for sustainability and equality for ALL living things.
Shelgeyr
1.6 / 5 (7) Dec 04, 2011
Nanobanano: If you think that my position is that the climate never ever changes, and/or that it has been consistent throughout all of history, then you are mistaken and (I hope) nothing I've written would actually lead one to that conclusion.

HOWEVER, this thread is about "Global Warming", and it is safe to say they're specifically pushing AGW since up near the beginning of the article it says:
"The science is solid and proves unequivocally that the world is warming," Lengoasa said. Human activity was a significant contributor to this trend, he said."


AGW is fraud, hopefully prosecuted criminal fraud (one can dream), and much of this site is a warmist echo chamber.

As for crops, I have the totality of the USA grain data available from the USDA from the links below (and many similar crop-specific pages on these sites):

http://www.usda.g..._REPORTS

http://usda.mannl...tID=1293
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2011
Meanwhile the great lakes are drying up as temps increase. See http://www.scienc...3533.htm
So maybe ocean levels will not increase as much as people think as they dry up and saturate the atmosphere, at least after the artic ice melts.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
See ya in the zoo, Mr. Polar Bear. Or maybe in the museum.
Nanobanano
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2011
Meanwhile the great lakes are drying up as temps increase. See http://www.scienc...3533.htm
So maybe ocean levels will not increase as much as people think as they dry up and saturate the atmosphere, at least after the artic ice melts.


Only to a certain extent, as theere are negative feedbacks to the amount of moisture teh atmosphere can hold at reasonable temperatures...

That is, macroscopic life itself begins to be threatened quite a bit before it could ever get tremendously more average humidity, convection, or water vapor than they have now.

If you doubled average convection you'd increase atmospheric pressure maybe a millibar or two thanks to the extra mass of water in the atmosphere, but it takes about a 13.5f increase in SST to double the average convection on the planet.

Meanwhile, doubling the average convection would not entirely offset the change in albedo from ice melting in the poles at such temps...
Nanobanano
2 / 5 (4) Dec 04, 2011
For example, if greenland melts entirely, you're looking at 23ft of sea level rise.

33ft of water = 1 atmosphere, that is, at 33ft below water you experience 2 atmosphere's pressure, so every 33ft of water adds 1 atmosphere pressure.

therefore, every INCH of ocean that evaporated in such a scenario would be equivalent to about 2 millibars of pressure increase world wide.

And um, better hope evaporation don't get enough to offset sea level rise from melting, because that would nearly double atmospheric pressure, and I believe temps would be incredibly high, like as high as the water in your hot water heater. Heat of Vaporization is 7 times greater than heat of fusion of water...
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2011
Shelgeyr - you keep saying the same thing over and over "AGW is fraud" Did u read this sentence- "2011 is currently tied for the 10th hottest since records began in 1850 and Arctic sea ice has shrunk to record-low volumes this year?" Exactly what are you saying when you claim AGW is a fraud? Are the ice sheets not melting, and they are lying about the data? Are the temperatures really not rising, and they are making up the data? Would this not be very easy to disprove? Sometimes subsets of science manipulate experimental data (eg - tobacco industry experiments). The fraudsters get caught very quickly - and roasted by the process of science. Do you really live in such an upside down world - that you believe almost all of the climate science community is conducting a mass fraud - and nobody can disprove it? Please show us your data sets. Otherwise - I respectfully call you and idiot - who is acting with a blatant political agenda.
Parsec
1 / 5 (1) Dec 04, 2011
Since the pie is the earth, and the last time I looked, the earth isn't growing, all rational, thinking people must conclude that the pie isn't growing.

How fast is the planet growing in your confused Libertarian/Randite universe?

"That is the socialist mentality. The size of the 'pie' is fixed and cannot grow." - RyggTard

Actually, while I believe firmly in AGW and disagree with 95% of the denialist mentality, I do think its an over simplification to say that because the earth is essentially a closed system that this means the size of the "pie" is fixed. Most resources are essentially boundless if you don't count the energy and technology (or pollution produced) in extracting them. For example, almost all rock contains iron, but extracting it is very expensive unless the rock is iron ore with a large amount of iron. The cost simply goes up as the percentage of iron in the ore decreases, but the actual amount of lower grade ore increases by a power law.
Parsec
1.5 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2011
cont.

This is true for almost all resources, including oil. In the case of oil, we have the technology to produce it, at a relative high cost, from biomass, so that resource is essentially boundless.
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (54) Dec 04, 2011
Parsec is incestuous child rapist omatumr.

omatumr, Member since: September 24, 2007, 11:57 am
http://www.physor...omatumr/
Parsec, Member since: September 24, 2007, 11:58 am
http://www.physor.../Parsec/
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (6) Dec 07, 2011
@dir said to me:
Did u read this sentence- "2011 is currently tied for the 10th hottest...


Of course. But pro-AGW climatologists have provided us with too many reasons to list here to NOT take what they say at face value. Just because they said it doesn't make it true. That's part-'n-parcel with the wholesale "fraud" thing. It strikes me as odd when I say their AGW claims are fraudulent, your response is "but they SAID it was the 10th hottest...etc." That's not a rebuttal. Their data sucketh mightily, and they've admitted it internally.

... that you believe almost all of the climate science community is conducting a mass fraud...


The most highly lauded, the "best and the brightest" of them certainly are.

I respectfully call you and idiot...


Man, feel free! It is sometimes even true, but not in this case. And yes, I admit I have a blatant political agenda partially based on opposition to socialism, and the use of faux-science to justify it.
Howhot
3 / 5 (4) Dec 07, 2011
Shelgyre says "AGW is fraud" REALLY? Sounds like a lying idiot pro-nut case right-winger all over again. Oh, there is that "socialism" word again. I claim AGW to be true and scientifically established as fact. Prove otherwise ya idiot lying stack of propaganda crap. MIKE CHECK this SOB.

Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 07, 2011
I have a blatant political agenda partially based on opposition to socialism, and the use of faux-science to justify it.

So your agenda is to discredit AGW becasue it is fake science used to promote socialism. Interesting thought. Thanks.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2011
Wow, Howhot, please don't be so shy! Tell us how you really feel!

And Seeker2, it isn't me who had to do anything to discredit AGW - its proponents have taken care of that all by themselves.

Strangely enough, I didn't make it a political issue. While I'm not denying that it definitely IS one, the efforts to politicize the issue began with those pushing the issue along with their horrific "remedies" for it. Well, we all know that it takes two to tango, so if a group wants to push a political agenda you don't like, and you don't go along with it, your "not going along with it" by default is also a political agenda.

Speaking of AGW politics, I was very pleased to see this:
www.humanevents.c...id=47996
Seeker2
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2011
And Seeker2, it isn't me who had to do anything to discredit AGW - its proponents have taken care of that all by themselves.

Shame on its proponents. Now we just have to watch as the artic melts.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
@Seeker2 said:
Now we just have to watch as the artic(sic) melts.


Did you notice what you did there? If AGW is legit, why does it need to make over-the-top alarmist claims? I mean unless you've discovered the fountain of youth or the like, not only will you not be around to watch the arctic melt, but probably neither will your great-great-great-great-grandchildren. And that's if it is happening at all. Because if it is happening at all, it is a ssssssllllllooooowwwwww process.

Now, I'm not normally picky about spelling (that whole "rocks/glass house" thing). But if you're going to make an over-the-top alarmist claim about a certain area, you should probably get the spelling of that area's name correct or it just looks juvenile.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2011
not only will you not be around to watch the arctic melt

So where have you been? The ice has melted 40% in the last 30 years. No problem finding spelling errors or typos but not too good on checking out the facts.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2011
Has anyone been to Glacier Mountain National Park lately? Is there still any glacier there?
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
The ice has melted 40% in the last 30 years?

You seriously believe that? You're going to plant your flag on that supposed datum? You're really calling that a "fact"?

Wow.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 09, 2011
So check it out and get back to me. Could have only been 35% in the last 30 years. Sorry.
Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 09, 2011
Sorry, I'm afraid the burden of your ridiculous claim is on you.

If I had said something like "Antarctica was formed by electric discharge deposition of materials similarly excavated from the Arctic..." then the burden would have been on me. But that would be one hell of a claim.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
Sorry, I'm afraid the burden of your ridiculous claim is on you.

Not my claim. I just now how to process information. You apparently don't. The burden of your ridicule is on you.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (3) Dec 10, 2011
For example I visited a freighter museum in Cleveland. Those old sailors claim the water levels are so low they can't take on a full load of cargo anymore.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (2) Dec 10, 2011
Per http://www.guardi...ice-melt
"August artic sea ice is down about 40% in the last 30 years."
Great posts by Nanobanano at http://www.physor...ock.html
"an extra 100 billion tons of ice ...10 years to complete meltdown"

Shelgeyr
1 / 5 (4) Dec 10, 2011
Really??? A Guardian article is your source?

From @Seeker2's link:
Reports focus on the possibility a record minimum for Arctic sea ice...


"...on the possibility..."

You're getting tiresome, as are all the climate alarmists. We ask for proof - admittedly knowing you have none - but watching you squirm to try to defend your advocacy has limited entertainment value.

Your ecological academic bright lights have been caught in outright repeated fraud. And no amount of subsequent references to alarmist articles from biased sources can help you bolster your position. You've lost.

You know who you should really be upset with? I mean, if you truly believe in AGW? You should be enraged at these "top climatologists" because they couldn't have done more damage to your cause if they had secretly been "denialist" saboteurs.

Cheers!
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011
We ask for proof

Proofs require assumptions. We only offer evidence. Yes, cheers.
Seeker2
1 / 5 (1) Dec 11, 2011