Global Warming?

[norman]

After seeing a claim on this site that if the worlds icecaps melted the Sea level would rise 65m, and prompted by total boredom in the office, I did a few calculations of my own. Based on Total Surface area of Icecaps average thickness of polar ice and world surface area. Even if I am am wrong by a factor of 1000 the sea levels would rise between .19cm and 1.9m! Has no one else in the world bothered to use basic O level maths on this subjebt! Or maybe the eco-scaremongers can't use a calculator! Or am I wrong? Will someone please explian how "they" work it out? Does Global Warming actually exist? I'm beginning to think not.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[tcm]

I agree. It is all a poxy plot by quasi-establishment types who like to command an audience by promising imminent doom. When i was little, the oil was gonna run out by the mid eighties. Before that, the Martians might turn up, or a nuclear bomb. Before that, God was going to strike you dead for blasphemy. In fact, the world is ours to (within limits) mould according to our whim, and kids should be told to get on with it. There are no bogeymen.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[farr]

At least when it does happen the Solent will finally be big enough for everyone - just think it'll be an overnight trip to Cowes instead of just a few hours!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

**bugger, lost the tabulation. Can see original <A target="_blank" HREF=http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs133-99//gl_vol.html>http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs133-99//gl_vol.html</A> **


Without getting into whether I believe the ice sheets are all going to melt (I don't), the following are the sort of calculations the professionals have made. I guess you either made some incorrect assumptions (total surface area of world instead of ocean area; density of ice, average thickness etc) or made a mistake in the maths


Geographic region (km2); Area (km3) ; Percent volume; Maximum sea level rise potential (m)**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ice caps, ice 680,000(A) 4.24 180,000A 0.55 0.45***
fields, valley
glaciers, etc.

Greenland
(Inland Ice) 1,736,095(B) 10.82 2,600,000B 7.90 6.50
Local ice 48,599B 0.30 20,000B 0.06 0.05
caps and
other
glaciers

Antarctic 13,586,400C 84.64 30,109,800C 91.49 73.44****

East Antarctica 10,153,170 26,039,200 64.80

West Antarctica 1,918,170 3,262,000 8.06

Antarctic 446,690 227,100 0.46
Peninsula

Ross Ice Shelf 536,070 229,600 0.01

Ronne-Filchner 532,200 351,900 0.11
ice sheves
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals 16,051,094 100.00 32,909,800 100.00 80.44
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Modified from Table 1 in Swithinbank (1985).

** Sea level rise potential (in meters) [defined as the maximum sea level rise
expected if all glacier ice were to melt in a specified geographic region
based on a density of 0.9 for glacier ice (Robin, 1967), an ocean area of
362X106km2 (National Geographic Society, 1996) and 400 km3 of glacier ice
melted to raise sea level 1mm]. The volume of glacier ice in the Greenland
and Antarctic ice sheets that is below sea level must be subtracted from
the total volume to give an accurate projection of maximum sea level rise
potential; the final version (e.g., publication of Chapter 1386-A) of this
table will include that correction.

*** Meier and Bahr (1996) estimated the total number of glaciers (outside Antarctica and Greenland)
at 160,000.

**** The total volume of glacier ice in Antarctica is 30,109,800 km3. For
the calculation of sea level rise potential, only the grounded-ice volume
of 29,377,800 km3 was used. The total grounded ice volume includes 25,921,700 km3
for East Antarctica, 3,222,700 km3 for West Antarctic, and 183,700 km3
for the Antarctic Peninsula. The volume of ice rises on the Ross Ice Shelf and
the Ronne-Filchner ice shelves are 5,100 km3 and 44,600 km3, respectively.

A Source for area and volume: Untersteiner (1975)
B Source for area and volume: Holtzscherer and Bauer (1954) and Weidick (1995)
C Source for area and volume: Drewry (1983)


<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1>Edited by BrendanS on 15/11/2003 18:52 (server time).</FONT></P>

 

[BrendanS]

Re: The reality

10/29/2003 - Updated 09:15 PM ET












While not all scientists are in total agreement, the January 2001 report of Working Group 1 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offers the best summary of the latest scientific thinking. This group consisted of experts from around the world and looked at the basic science of climate change.

In its Summary for Policy Makers, the working group says on that during the 21st century:

Northern Hemisphere snow cover and sea-ice extent are projected to decrease further.

Glaciers and ice caps are projected to continue their widespread retreat during the 21st century.

The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to grain mass because of greater precipitation, while the Greenland ice sheet is likely to lose mass because the increase in runoff will exceed the precipitation increase.

Concerns have been expressed about the stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet because it is grounded below sea level. However, loss of grounded ice leading to substantial sea level rise from this source is now widely agreed to be very unlikely during the 21st century
.
Global mean sea level is projected to rise by 0.09 to 0.88 meters (0.29 to 2.88 feet) between 1990 and 2100.

The report notes that projections of sea level rise are lower slightly lower than in the Working Group's 1995 report even though the 2001 report projects higher temperatures by 2100 than the 1995 report did. The reason is "primarily due to the use of improved models, which give a smaller contribution from glaciers and ice sheets" than the models used for the 1995 report



<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three

 

[norman]

Sorry Brendan, but I'm not convinced. I handed those numbers over to a mate of mine who is bit of a number cruncher. I also had a look a several other websites who have different interpretatations of the same data. I now firmly believe that the "rising sea levels" mafia are alarmist and are basing their conclusions on bad science and dodgy interpretations of even dodgier "facts". Based on the world sea area we worked out that to raise sea levels 80m as stated in your list would take much much more ice than actually exists! The IPCC Data seems to me to be much more realistic, but it is probably not dramatic enough to be noticed!

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

I don't know what you are actually doing to the numbers, but the volume of ice is considered to be quite accurately calculated. Once you've got that, it's a fairly simple calculation to arrive at 80metres.

if you look here, there is a NASA leaflet for teachers, showing how to do the calculations, with the numbers and correct answers. <A target="_blank" HREF=http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/PDF_Examples/02_10_97_1.pdf>http://pumas.jpl.nasa.gov/PDF_Examples/02_10_97_1.pdf</A>

<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three

 

[billmacfarlane]

That must be one helluva boring job you've got there Norman.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[charles_reed]

Global warming undoubtedly exists - even the opponents of the "Greenhouse" theory agree that.

However whether it is just a recovery from the mini-Ice Age of the early 19th century or whether it is down to our use of fossil fuels is unclear. Those scientists who most earnestly argue it all have a vested pecuniary interest and there is an equally large body who maintain the human influence is unproven.

However I suspect you may have grievously underestimated the amount of water trapped in the icecaps.

Perhaps you might like to do the calculations again?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

OK, another thought. Post your calculations, and we can critique them. The calculations I have posted are open to everyone for comment, yours should be the same

<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three

 

[jamesjermain]

I am terribly ignorant about these things, so forhgive me if what follows is terribly obvious/childish/silly.

When scientists calculate sea level rises, do they consider all ice, or just ice-on-land. Obviously (to me) ice floating on the sea, when it melts, does not contribute to sea level rise, since it already displaces the same volume as it will occupy when it returns to water.

Also,have you seen recent programmes suggesting the death of the North Atlantic drift and therefore an imminent mini-ice age for north west Europe?

<hr width=100% size=1>JJ

 

[JOHNOO]

You are right. However if the ice that melted was on a land mass then it would increse the water hight.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[mickshep]

I hope someone gets the figures right soon, I've spent ages looking for worthless land at the 70m contour, My cunning plan is to buy said land then excavate entire site as potential marina developement of the future, Any potential investors can send me large denomination notes which will ensure them a prime position in this wonderful future developement, I also expect to lay a number of moorings which for the forseeable future will be available for inspection at any state of the tide. Cheers, Mike;-)

<hr width=100% size=1>"Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me."

 

[Chris_Robb]

I already have bought some land on the 70 mtr contour - on the side of a hill so ideal for a deepwater marina. - will be selling futures shortly - so role up role up!!! On the edge of ideal sailing area bounded by the south downs to the south and the north downs.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

James,

In my response - the one with lots of numbers, as calculated by scientists, it states that only grounded-ice volumes were used.

It was the thread on the North Atlantic drift saline pump issue, where someone gave a number that started this thread.

<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Your range appears..

more than enough to see off Bangladesh the Maldives and quite a lot of low lying areas.

I suspect that the top end of your range would deliver Skegness type conditions into Bedfordshire.

Ho Hum

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Sybarite]

If it gets hot enough to melt the ice caps, how much additional evaporation will take place creating a cloud cover which in turn will cool things down again?

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[BrendanS]

In fact, that's one of the reasons that hugely increased sea levels are unlikely to happen. The Greenland icecap is quite susceptible to melting. The Antartic icecap however is a desert, and despite the fact that it is 2 miles thick in places, rarely snows.

It is also so cold, that even 10 degrees of warming will not bring it above freezing. If there was widespread warming, the increased snowfall on the Antartic would negate the effect of rising sea level

<hr width=100% size=1>For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three

 

[jimi]

And also I thought that water around the feezing level expanded .. which is why ice floats .. so if water warms up ..if its dang cold won't it contract?

<hr width=100% size=1>O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!