Pointing It Out (Again) wrote:
Pointing It Out (Again) wrote:
Pointing It Out (Again) wrote:
Interesting that so many posters apparently did not read the article I linked to.
Fine, I read the article. Here were the interesting bits;
-In fact, most of the sea-level rise observed to date is because of this warming effect, not melting ice caps.
-But before Argo, researchers relied on temperature sensors ...That method was subject to uncertainties, especially around measurement depth, that hamper today’s scientists as they stitch together 20th-century temperature data into a global historical record. In the new analysis, Hausfather and his colleagues assessed three recent studies that better accounted for the older instrument biases.
-The researchers also reviewed a fourth study that had used a novel method to estimate ocean temperatures over time and had also found that the world’s oceans were heating faster than the I.P.C.C. prediction. But that study contained an error that caused its authors to revise their estimates downward.
So here are my observations;
It says polar ice caps aren't melting. (can't these scientist get their story strait?)
It says the ocean temperature data is based on stitching together different measurement methods. They guestimate the older instrument biases and this stitching together of different data is error prone and the "estimates" might need to be adjusted in the future.
The bottom line is the measurements about temperature, or sea levels, or whatever other metric you are looking at is unreliable information that does not deserves the public's attention, much less political activity to prevent a tenuous prediction of looming catastrophe. Any change in the allocation of our economic resources to prevent climate change will actually cost more (and result in more human suffering) than whatever climate apocalypse some people think will happen. Listen closely to the scientists themselves and they will give you clues that they are operating on many assumption and guess work. But they think their opinion is very important and must be listened because they want to continue getting grant money to do their research.
The only pragmatic approach to this whole issue is to just wait and see what happens, and react to the climate changes if/when they come. Even if the climate change prediction weren't covered in 10 layers of uncertainty, it's not like we could change anything anyway. Our energy grid is based on the only source of reliable and affordable energy available, and that is petrochemicals. Wind, and solar cannot deliver a reliable stream of electrical energy, and trying to incorporate them into the grid causes more problems then they solve. It actually makes the grid less efficient. As for mobile energy usage (electric cars), they rely on the petrochemical based grid. I hate t break it to you environmentalists, but your prius runs on coal. If we all had electric cars AND spent trillions of dollars for the sake of adding wind and solar to the grid, the manufacture process to make the solar panels for the grid and batteries for all the cars comes with energy costs and environmental downsides as well. And it still doesn't solve the problem of what to do when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining or you live anywhere north of the 35th parallel. Face it, petrochemicals are the most efficient way to get energy, and nothing is going to change that fact. Switching to any "renewable" source, on the scale of the whole grid, causes more problems and inefficiencies than it helps. This is why there is nothing that could be done about climate change, even if it was a problem.
That's what you get when you ask people to read the silly article. Happy?
I think his (perhaps naive) assumption was that someone who was not a complete moron might read the article and respond.
Your very first "observation" shows that you do not qualify.
Hint: "As the oceans warm, sea levels rise because warmer water takes up more space than colder water. In fact, most of the sea-level rise observed to date is because of this warming effect, not melting ice caps." does NOT say that the polar ice caps are not melting - although I know that you are too much of a moron to understand that.
The bottom line is by their own admission, the scientist can not precisely quantify the link between melting ice caps and sea level rise (sea-level rise observed to date...). The melting ice cap = sea level rise relationship is still future prediction. This is why I said "can't these scientist get their story right" because I've heard plenty of times that melting ice caps=sea level rise. Then I read in the article that this link has not actually been measured. Well if the scientists have not actually measured this causal relationship, why do they claim it is real? Aren't they suppose to be empiricists? Granted, I did simplify this point to just one line. I expected sympathetic readers to fill this in themselves. If you were trying to understand what I wrote, you would have succeeded.
Wow, and I thought that your first post was stupid. You've absolutely topped it with this one ^ .
Where exactly do you think that the water that melts from an ice cap will go? Perhaps it will journey to Mars? Or maybe you can hide it under your bed? Or even use it to inflate your water bed if you have one?
It is not exactly a great mystery as to where the melt water will end up. Nor is it a very challenging calculation to determine the ratio between the volume of ice melted and the volume of water added to the oceans. So yeah, melting ice caps lead to sea level rise. Nothing in the article (or anywhere else in the Universe) suggests otherwise.
Further, the expansion of ocean water due to its rising temperature is elementary. This happens to be the dominant term to date in sea level rises.
So, point blank - there is nothing, zip, zilch, zero in that article to support anything that you have claimed in your two posts.
I am truly sorry if such a simple article is beyond your grasp. If you had any idea how stupid you make yourself look with your posts you would likely be horrified. Thankfully, you probably lack the intellectual capacity to realize how idiotic your posts are.
To -Pointing It Out (Again)-
The basic thrust of the article is that various methods of measuring ocean temperature have to be estimated and modified to pretend we have a complete picture of what's going on.
It's cute that you think we have accurate data on how much ice has melted or accumulated from Greenland and Antarctica. You really think they have an accurate survey of all the ice there? Some ice can be melting from the side while weather patterns put more ice in the center of these land masses. Or perhaps weather patterns will cause more snow/ice to accumulate in the high mountain ranges on the various continents. We would have to be keeping constant surveys of all the glaciers and snow packs on earth to even begin to get a comprehensive picture of what has happened, let alone what will happen in the future.
Once the ice melts, will this water be warm and cause sea levels to rise a lot? Or will it be dense and not contribute much to sea level rise? Will it accumulate around land masses, or will ocean currents make most of it settle in the center of the ocean and not contribute much to sea level rise?
These are just a few uncertainties regarding ocean water and ice melting. There are many more factors that would go into looking at the entire climate. These things are all variables and we just don't know them. The whole endeavor is shrouded in 10 layers of uncertainty.
It's cute that you think scientist accurately know all these things. It's cute that you think there is even a way to collect all this date over a long enough time to make accurate predictive models. It's cute that you think a predictive model of the climate is even possible. But go ahead and keep calling me stupid if that make you feel better.
The are many of us who don't care about climate change because we know it is uncertain and unchangeable even if we did know. You will not change our minds. You can't convince us you are certain of something when we are smart enough to see all the uncertainties. We aren't like you. We don't think our goddess mother earth will be angry with us and punish us if we don't make sacrifices to her. We just don't care. I've tried to explain the reasons why we don't care. Keep calling me stupid, it won't change a thing.
I've got a little secret for you. You don't care either. Why are you burning fossil fuels right now wasting energy on your computer? It's because you don't care either.
Wow, that's got to be the most complete capitulation I have ever seen on LRC! Congratulations are in order!
So, someone using a computer means they don't care? I suppose that means that someone who eats does not care since much, if not all, of what we eat has been produced, harvested, transported . . . with the benefit of fossil fuels. So, therefore nobody cares. Brilliant!
Have you been working to develop that level of stupidity your entire life? Or does it just come naturally?
- Seriously dude, every time you post you come across as more stupid than the time before.
Yeah, I knew that last line would rile you up. I used it on a brain washed environmentalist a couple years ago and they got just as triggered as you. They never argued any of my points, just hurled insults. Sound familiar?
And you are right, if you eat food, you are part of the problem. You live off fossil fuels, and there is nothing you can do about it. By your very existence you are harming your goddess mother earth. And your goddess demands a sacrifice. But you're not willing to sacrifice anything from yourself. You just want to force others to jump into the volcano for you. And you get really angry when anyone questions the high priests (climate scientists) authority. But like I told you before, I don't worship your goddess, I'm not going to sacrifice anything for her, and I see right through all the lies of your high priests. I've pointed out the lies for you to see (all the guess work and estimations that go into the data gathering), but you are blind. Keep yelling at me blind one.