Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

Of course, nobody knows what the sea level will be in one hundred years. They are just predictions.

"Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level."

[Bill Pup60]

I suppose your quotes on this statement indicate you got it from your single book you seem to depend on.

Actually the preponderance of data, particularly proxy geological data, indicate that sea level has risen about 120 meters since the last Glacial Maximum around 18,000 years ago. (Fairbanks, 1989). Coral data also show roughly the same uniform rate of rise during more recent past centuries. (Toscano and Macintyre, 2003). More recent tide gauge data also show a uniform rate of rise ( about 1.8 millimeters per year) during the past century.(Trupin and Wahr, 1990 and Douglas, 2001)

Since we know this rate has stayed relatively constant during both warming and cooling periods this indicates that the dramatic increases predicted by Reverend Al and the IPCC are pure BS.

[saltydawg]

I suppose your quotes on this statement indicate you got it from your single book you seem to depend on.

Actually the preponderance of data, particularly proxy geological data, indicate that sea level has risen about 120 meters since the last Glacial Maximum around 18,000 years ago. (Fairbanks, 1989). Coral data also show roughly the same uniform rate of rise during more recent past centuries. (Toscano and Macintyre, 2003). More recent tide gauge data also show a uniform rate of rise ( about 1.8 millimeters per year) during the past century.(Trupin and Wahr, 1990 and Douglas, 2001)

Since we know this rate has stayed relatively constant during both warming and cooling periods this indicates that the dramatic increases predicted by Reverend Al and the IPCC are pure BS.

No, it was from the USGS.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs2-00/

If Earth's climate continues to warm, then the volume of present-day ice sheets will decrease. Melting of the current Greenland ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 6.5 meters; melting of the West Antarctic ice sheet would result in a sea-level rise of about 8 meters (table 1). The West Antarctic ice sheet is especially vulnerable, because much of it is grounded below sea level. Small changes in global sea level or a rise in ocean temperatures could cause a breakup of the two buttressing ice shelves (Ronne/Filchner and Ross). The resulting surge of the West Antarctic ice sheet would lead to a rapid rise in global sea level.
Reduction of the West Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets similar to past reductions would cause sea level to rise 10 or more meters. A sea-level rise of 10 meters would flood about 25 percent of the U.S. population, with the major impact being mostly on the people and infrastructures in the Gulf and East Coast States (fig. 3).

[Bill Pup60]

Those numbers were in the earlier IPCC report.

Regardless, it's still BS. Note the part where your cut and paste states that one of the Antarctic ice sheets is particularly vulernable because most of it is below sea level. Please explain how ice that is already below sea level would raise sea level if it melts.

Further, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already in the sea. That means that much of it is being held up by bouyant forces. Again, do you understand Archimedes Principle?

[saltydawg]

Those numbers were in the earlier IPCC report.

Regardless, it's still BS. Note the part where your cut and paste states that one of the Antarctic ice sheets is particularly vulernable because most of it is below sea level. Please explain how ice that is already below sea level would raise sea level if it melts.

Further, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already in the sea. That means that much of it is being held up by bouyant forces. Again, do you understand Archimedes Principle?

I think I understand the Archimedes Principle but just to be safe maybe you better explain it.

As far as the ice that "is below sea level" raising the sea level, please note that that ice is not currently displacing any ocean water even though it is below sea level.

Are you saying that the United States Geological Service is wrong and your are correct?

[Guisslapp]

Are you saying that the United States Geological Service is wrong and your are correct?

Are you saying that scientists that work for the government and make less money are more likely to be correct than scientists that have been successful working in private industries where there is more competition?

[saltydawg]

Are you saying that scientists that work for the government and make less money are more likely to be correct than scientists that have been successful working in private industries where there is more competition?

Albert Einstein worked for the Patent Office.

Bill Pup is not a climate scientist. He is a retired Petroleum Reservoir Engineer.

So your choice is not valid.

[Guisslapp]

Albert Einstein worked for the Patent Office.

For the Swiss Patent Office. And it sort of illustrates my point, anyway. People look for government jobs when they cannot find private employment. Einstein worked for the Swiss Patent Office BECAUSE he couldn't get a job elsewhere. Government jobs are for experience. Those that make careers in government jobs generally do it because they aren't cut out for the competition of private industry.

[saltydawg]

For the Swiss Patent Office. And it sort of illustrates my point, anyway. People look for government jobs when they cannot find private employment. Einstein worked for the Swiss Patent Office BECAUSE he couldn't get a job elsewhere. Government jobs are for experience. Those that make careers in government jobs generally do it because they aren't cut out for the competition of private industry.

It more a question of office politics, discrimination, and job security than job competency. Plenty of people work in private industry who are aren't that sharp.

I always though that Big Al worked for the Patent Office because it gave him plenty of time to daydream.

[saltydawg]

Germany leads the way!

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news08...ws7.3.08a.html

Germany Begins Storage of CO2 in Deep Salt Water Rock Cavern
Germany inaugurated Europe's first underground carbon dioxide storage site on Monday, the country's national geoscience institute said.

The site at Ketzin, outside Berlin, is part of a European project dubbed CO2SINK which aims to test whether capturing and storing carbon dioxide in subterranean rock is a viable way of fighting global warming, the GFZ centre in Potsdam said.

It will pump up 60,000 tons of the greenhouse gas into porous, salt water-filled rock at depths of more than 600 metres (656 yards) over the next two years, the centre said.

The first injection of gas below the surface took place later on Monday.

Reinhard Huettl, the science director of the institute, said storing carbon dioxide underground could slow down global warming and thereby buy scientists extra time to develop alternative energy sources.

"The storage of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is an option to win time in the development and introduction of carbon dioxide-reduced energy technology," he said.

Huettl said the site will become a "unique worldwide laboratory" to study the success of the world's main global warming gas.

[Bill Pup60]

Albert Einstein worked for the Patent Office.

Bill Pup is not a climate scientist. He is a retired Petroleum Reservoir Engineer.

So your choice is not valid.

I may be a just a "retired Petroeum Reservoir Engineer" (among other things) but I do have a PhD in Chem E. (among other scientific degees) and and significant experience in properties and behavior of CO2, as well as significant experience in operations research and sparse matrix statistics and advanced finite diference computer modeling on supercomputers. I also have direct contact with some of the modelers working with the IPCC models.

I think this makes me far more qualified to judge between poop and reality in this debate than you, Salty.

[DogtorEvil]

I may be a just a "retired Petroeum Reservoir Engineer" (among other things) but I do have a PhD in Chem E. (among other scientific degees) and and significant experience in properties and behavior of CO2, as well as significant experience in operations research and sparse matrix statistics and advanced finite diference computer modeling on supercomputers. I also have direct contact with some of the modelers working with the IPCC models.

I think this makes me far more qualified to judge between poop and reality in this debate than you, Salty.

No it doesn't!!!!1!! saltyhawk has read a book on global warming!!!1!! He's an experrrrt!!!1!!

We need to add this smiley and call it salty:

[saltydawg]

I may be a just a "retired Petroeum Reservoir Engineer" (among other things) but I do have a PhD in Chem E. (among other scientific degees) and and significant experience in properties and behavior of CO2, as well as significant experience in operations research and sparse matrix statistics and advanced finite diference computer modeling on supercomputers. I also have direct contact with some of the modelers working with the IPCC models.

I think this makes me far more qualified to judge between poop and reality in this debate than you, Salty.

Bill Pup, you may think so but I would conclude that certain subjective factors about this topic are influencing your analysis.

[saltydawg]

No it doesn't!!!!1!! saltyhawk has read a book on global warming!!!1!! He's an experrrrt!!!1!!

We need to add this smiley and call it salty:

Calling it DogtorEvil would be more appropriate given your maturation.

[saltydawg]

Those numbers were in the earlier IPCC report.

Regardless, it's still BS. Note the part where your cut and paste states that one of the Antarctic ice sheets is particularly vulernable because most of it is below sea level. Please explain how ice that is already below sea level would raise sea level if it melts.

Further, much of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is already in the sea. That means that much of it is being held up by bouyant forces. Again, do you understand Archimedes Principle?

Billpup, this is from the USGS. What exactly do you disagree with it.

"During cold-climate intervals, known as glacial epochs or ice ages, sea level falls because of a shift in the global hydrologic cycle: water is evaporated from the oceans and stored on the continents as large ice sheets and expanded ice caps, ice fields, and mountain glaciers. Global sea level was about 125 meters below today's sea level at the last glacial maximum about 20,000 years ago (Fairbanks, 1989). As the climate warmed, sea level rose because the melting North American, Eurasian, South American, Greenland, and Antarctic ice sheets returned their stored water to the world's oceans. During the warmest intervals, called interglacial epochs, sea level is at its highest. Today we are living in the most recent interglacial, an interval that started about 10,000 years ago and is called the Holocene Epoch by geologists.

Sea levels during several previous interglacials were about 3 to as much as 20 meters higher than current sea level. The evidence comes from two different but complementary types of studies. One line of evidence is provided by old shoreline features (fig. 2). Wave-cut terraces and beach deposits from regions as separate as the Caribbean and the North Slope of Alaska suggest higher sea levels during past interglacial times. A second line of evidence comes from sediments cored from below the existing Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. The fossils and chemical signals in the sediment cores indicate that both major ice sheets were greatly reduced from their current size or even completely melted one or more times in the recent geologic past. The precise timing and details of past sea-level history are still being debated, but there is clear evidence for past sea levels significantly higher than current sea level."