FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
Why Oceans Will Not Rise Much

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:15 am    Post subject: Why Oceans Will Not Rise Much Reply with quote

Why Oceans are not Rising

Ice which sits over oceans does not cause a change in sea level when it melts, because the water is already supporting its weight. The only way sea level can rise is when ice which was over land moves into the oceans.

Global warming propagandists have recently been saying that ocean levels are expected to rise 20 feet in the future. There are two positions propagandists take on every issue: One, there is the public impression. In this case, ice melting everywhere is supposed to tell the public that ocean levels are rising. Two, there is the technical rationalization. Here, the technical rationalization is based upon misrepresented science, as always.

Scientific studies show ice accumulating over land on Antarctica and Greenland. Propagandists state the opposite based upon misrepresentation of those studies. The full articles are not available on the internet, but there is enough information to evaluate the claims. The first study was published in Science on May 19 and June 24, 2005. Satellite radar was used to show thickening of ice over eastern Antarctica, with some thinning over western Antarctica, but a net increase, which means slight reducing effect upon ocean levels.

On October 20 and November 11, 2005 Science published a study showing the same thing on Greenland: satellite radar showed ice increasing on the interior of Greenland.

These results were supposedly contradicted by a new method of measurement by satellites using gravity sensors. In Science, March 2, a study showed Antarctica losing ice; and in Nature, September 21, it was reported that Greenland is losing ice. But these later studies describe total size of the ice sheet. This includes ice over the oceans. Ice melting over the oceans will result in some warming but not a rise in ocean level. The gravimetric measurements cannot determine if ice is thickening over land. In other words, gravimetric measurements only determine surface area, which could be done optically. But by using an esoteric method, the public can be misled on the meaning.

A Washington Post article describing the gravimetric study of Antarctica said ocean levels would rise, because overland ice was shrinking, which is not what the study showed. In a similar way, it is now common for propagandists to claim ice is shrinking overland on Antarctica.

This standard has to be called fraud. Trickery in the way the study was described resulted in false assumptions, and the scientists promoted the false assumptions instead of correcting them. The scientists who did the gravimetric study kept saying ice was shrinking without clarifying that it was ice over water that was shrinking. Then journalists described ice over land as shrinking, while the study had no ability to determine if ice over land was shrinking. The end result is that the gravimetric study is used as the basis for propagandists to falsely claim that ice over land is melting at Antarctica, which will supposedly result in oceans rising.

The Washington Post article on the gravimetric study goes so far as to say ice on Antarctica is moving more rapidly toward the oceans as the supposed mechanism for rising ocean levels, since there is no direct melting of ice at Antarctica. The gravimetric study had no ability to determine whether ice was moving. All it could do is locate the boundaries around the ice to determine surface area. Furthermore, if ice were moving more rapidly on Antarctica, the cause would have to be increased weight pushing it faster, while increased weight would require ice to be increasing, not decreasing.

On Greenland, it is said glaciers are moving more rapidly toward the sea due to melt-water lubricating them. But there has been no quantitative determination of the extent to which it is occurring. The anecdotal descriptions appear to apply to coastal areas rather than interior conditions. There does not appear to be much quantitative significance in terms of ocean levels rising, because Greenland is small compared to Antarctica, and only in limited areas is ice moving into the oceans, while satellite radar measurements show ice thickening over land on Greenland.

Ice is increasing over land on Antarctica and Greenland, because precipitation is increasing due to warmer oceans which evaporate more rapidly. This in itself would cause ocean levels to fall. But ocean levels have been slightly rising due to glaciers melting over land. This includes ice falling more rapidly from the sides of Greenland due to warmer ocean water nearby. The amount of ice that can fall off land and into the oceans cannot produce much rise in ocean levels before increasing ice over land causes ocean levels to fall.

References:

1. Ice Thickening over Antarctica: Science Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/308/5730/1898

2. News Story on Same:
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html

3. Ice Thickening over Greenland: Science Abstract:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1

4. News Story on Same:
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1485573.htm

5. Gravimetric Measurement over Antarctica. Authors' News Release:
http://www.colorado.edu/news/releases/2006/86.html

6. Washington Post Article on Same:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/02/AR2006030201712.html

(You may have to copy and paste the Wash Post address due to length problem.)

Source Page:
http://nov55.com/oceans.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Shroom



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 71

PostPosted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 3:16 am    Post subject: Washington Post on Oceans Rising Reply with quote

The Washington Post article on Antarctica shows how science and journalism are combined to misrepresent global warming. The purpose of the article was to convince the public that sea level will be rising, as the subtitle indicates: "Antarctic Ice Sheet Is Melting Rapidly—New Study Warns Of Rising Sea Levels". Doesn't this tell the public that melting ice is causing the sea level to rise? The science study which the article is based upon shows no such thing.

The study used gravimetric satellite measurements of Antarctica's ice. This method of measurement can only determine the surface area of the ice; it cannot measure the thickness of the ice, as the researchers stated. In other words, it does the same thing as observation of an image would do.

The way the gravity sensing works is that when satellites pass over the ice, a change in gravity shows where the boundary of the ice is located. Changes of gravity within the ice sheet could be due to uneven topography of the ground, which cannot be distinguished from differences in ice thickness. Not knowing what was under the ice, the only thing the measurements could determine is where the edges of the ice were located, just as an image would show. Other studies based upon radar from satellites rather than gravity show ice thickening over Antarctica and Greenland.

What is not usually clarified for the public is that ice which sits over water cannot change the level of the water as it melts, because the water is already supporting the weight of the ice. To cause sea level to rise, ice which was over land needs to move into the ocean.

Therefore, when the study showed shrinkage of the ice sheet, only the ice over the ocean was shrinking, and it had no ability to cause sea level to rise. A change in surface area, as measured, can only apply to ice over the ocean, not ice over land. First, a reduction in ice over land could not be detected with the gravimetric method being used, because the procedure could not distinguish between the ice and the land under it. Secondly, if ice over land were ending up in the ocean, it would either have to melt—and there is no melting of inland ice on Antarctica—or it would have to move as ice, like a flowing glacier. But the study had no method of determining how glacial ice was moving.

I haven't seen the original science article, but the methodology does not lend itself to measurement of moving ice with any credibility. That isn't to say that frauds producing junk science don't find anything they want to find in a study. Regardless, the only way glacial ice on Antarctica can move faster is if there is more weight on it, which requires the ice to be thickening. Thickening ice on Antarctica causes sea level to decrease, not increase. There is a different mechanism on Greenland, where ice melts to form liquid which flows under some glaciers, and this causes them to move faster; but ice does not melt to liquid on Antarctica's inland areas.

The Washington Post article indicated that sea level might be increasing by 20 ft. Here's the quote:

Quote:
,,,(The melting ice at Antarctica) is causing global sea level to rise by 0.4 millimeters a year. The continent holds 90 percent of the world's ice, and the disappearance of even its smaller West Antarctic ice sheet could raise worldwide sea levels by an estimated 20 feet.


The claimed increase in sea level of 0.4 mm per year is equivalent to one inch per century. What is going to cause the 20 ft increase mentioned in the next sentence? Supposedly, the disappearance of the West Antarctic ice sheet. That's like saying the green Martians might do it. There is nothing in the science to indicate that it will happen. The only purpose of the statement was to get the 20 ft number in print, because it is the number now floating around amongst frauds and the reason why Congress is supposed to act now, before Miami and New York end up under water. The latest IPCC report is hyping the 20 ft number.

The 20 ft number has other sources also. Someone found a way to associate it with Greenland. Isn't it a coincidence that either Greenland or Antarctica could cause the seal level to increase by 20 ft, when there is so much difference between them? As long as it is the same number all of the time, no one can say where it came from, and criticism is muted. But the criticism can be based on more reliable science which shows the fraud of the global warming propaganda from beginning to end.

My web page:
http://nov55.com/oceans2.html


Last edited by Shroom on Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:13 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
atm



Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 3861

PostPosted: Tue Feb 06, 2007 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Shroom

I think an audio interview is in the offing Wink .

As I write this, sipping on a G&T, watching the ice melt in the glass...well, it's obvious!

Fintan rightly supported your analysis: "...basic science..." were his words.

A theory that a well educated friend imparted recently supports your key premise.

His theory is this:

If the ice really is melting at a disproprtionate rate it will result in further precipitation ergo, more snow, ergo, more ice!

Well, he was close. You are closest.

May I take this opportunity to welcome you aboard the BFN Ice Breaker Cool.

This is just a warm up Laughing.

atm Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> Tomorrow's World All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.