Ocean Level Rising - My Mistake and My Apology, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news8542.html

http://www.physorg.com/news8542.html

PEOPLE: I screwed up! I screwed up big time! I am embarrassed. I apologize to each of you. I am an engineer, and I should have known better. I acted too quickly without thinking. I am going to gag down a piece of my hat today.

BUT, I do know more, now, than I did 12 hours ago. I will not make the same mistake again. I will try not to make a similar mistake in the future.

Wouldn"t it be great if all the people in government, politics, science, religion, and even the advocates of global warming; responded to their mistakes and misunderstandings in the same way? Everything would move forward much faster. Remember... the Catholic Church advocated an Earth Centered System until 1835... The Catholic Church was 292 years behind science in 1835... and that was only 172 years ago.

My intention was to show a large non-linear relationship between ocean radius and ocean volume. Unfortunately, my example was true only for an initial ocean radius of zero. In fact, at a radius of 4,000 miles, a 20-foot increase in ocean radius is almost linear with volume. I demonstrated the folly of prejudicial science.

I received 18 email responses within a few hours. Two blew me off. Three attributed ocean level rising primarily to thermal expansion. Eight made extensive comments and helpful explanations. Two made erroneous arguments (like me). One did not believe that the ocean has a radius. Only three of the responses correctly discerned and explained my error. Thank you.

We must resist believing-in and advocating things that we only read... Things which others have only read, believed, and then wrote about as experts.

In 1999, the Y2K problem was certain to be a disaster. Even kitchen appliances would cease to function. Chaos and anarchy could result. People bought guns and food. Where were all the experts who should have known better?

In 2002, the U.S. had to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein of WMD and end Iraq"s support for terrorism... before Iraq"s intentions were announced by a mushroom cloud. Experts said there were aluminum tubes, bio-weapons trailers, bio-attack drones, and uranium purchases. Anyone doubting the experts was unpatriotic, but the all patriots, like all the experts, were all wrong.

In 2007, global warming is certain to be a disaster. "Tens of millions will be flooded out of their homes each year." The experts include Al Gore, who has a degree in "government" and has written a book about what he has read.

Has anyone ever watched a campfire? It starts, it grows, it gets hot, and it gets cold. How many global warming experts have been watching the Sun?

James T. Conklin
Longwood, FL

Don't worry about getting it wrong over global warming. adoucette does it everytime he posts on GW, as does sock puppet NotArthur and other conspiracy theoriests who think they know something the weather experts and scientists don't know.

As to the sun, experts not checking it before they made their claims is like an engineer turning up for a job with chopsticks instead of tools.

Provably the world's ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. Where is it going? In the sea of course, so the seas will rise. When you say that they will rise about eight inches this century worldwide, it doesn't sound much. Just like when you say there could be a temperature rise of 5-10.C . People think their summers will just be a bit warmer and their winters not quite so cold.

In the year 1816, the year without a summer when they had snow in New York City in July and many harvests failed leading to famines, it was just 1.F colder than usual.

To think that a rise of water levels of eight inches is just going to mean high tides will be just a little higher is a similar fallacy. With a trend of more and stronger storms in the last few decades, it will mean even worse storms, severe flooding and so on as the barriers have to hold back millions of tons more water (1 cu m of water weighs a ton, and the pressure isn't just a single metre of water distance resting on a barrier. It can be miles of water) and higher waves.

B15, one of a number of melting icebergs containing a mere 10^15 gallons of water :

http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1


and the warmer weather will mean that it is not replaced.

Except B15 was part of the Ross Ice Shelf, and as such was ALREADY FLOATING

Thus essentially no change to sea level when it melts.

OOPS.

Was it due to GW?

From Kaneda's own link?

Typical GWer BS though.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Mar 23 2007, 07:39 PM

So, floating ice aside. Land based glaciers are developing little pools, by little i mean much bigger than your average swimming pool, and instead of seeping back into the ice and freezing they make huge holes to the bottom of the ice and lubricate the glacier causing it to slide into, and melt into, the ocean. Must be some more of that GW BS right guy.

Why do you think this is a NEW phenomena?

Note the IPCC REDUCED its estimate of Sea Level rise, and most of that rise is supposed to come from thermal expansion.

Do you know something they don't?

Arthur

Maybe off the subject but I would not have used these two examples to prove any point:

Y2K was a real problem and thousands of people throughout the world worked on the problem for several years before it happened to fix the problem. I know for a fact that at one large company, over 200,000 employees, that a whole department devoted just to Y2K worked on this problem for several years. The reason nothing happened is because it was fixed before the due date.

Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction. He gassed his own people; he was constructing a behemoth of a gun able to lob a round as large as a small car or nuclear weapon to Israel. He was working on biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons. We don’t know, and may never know exactly what happened, but I believe as others, that he sent his WMD to neighboring countries because, the enemy of my enemy is my friend, even though he wanted to take over those countries, he would have rather had other Arab countries have the WMD’s than for them to get in the hands of the West, and for us to hold them high and show the world what we had found.

which the very desperate conspiracy theorist adoufusset uses. Duh year 2000. Climate experts and scientists have found out new information since then. Monkeys have been found to be able to learn new information but creationists and climate deniers cannot showing they are inferior to those monkeys.

adoufusset. Original estimates were 45 cm which has been knocked back to 30 cm but this would have to be upgraded if much of the world's ice melts (on land as well as sea) as predicted.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4290340.stm


and it is getting worse!

Nope, the 30 cm REPRESENTS the latest IPCC prediction.

You know something they don't?

Your article was about SEA ICE.

Which has NOTHING to do with ocean levels.

I do hope you noticed THIS from the article:

So NOW, it is POSSIBLE that the sea ice is now reaching the levels it reached during the 30s and 40s.

You know from before there was significant increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.

There was also this:

OOPS.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on Mar 25 2007, 04:24 PM

adoucette.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4290340.stm

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/24/1066631611744.html

http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/16551462.htm


Why don't you give any links? Afraid I'll see where you are quoting something out of context?

The QUOTES were from YOUR link.

Since your memory is short here's YOUR link again:

http://amrc.ssec.wisc.edu/icebergfaq.html#A1

Arthur

So, Arthur. Do we have your guarantee that the Greenland icecap isn't going to experience significant melting, even if we burn all the coal in your home state? Where does Florida send the insurance claim if you HAPPEN to turn out wrong?

People who worry about Greenland melting have NEVER been to Greenland.

As to our 18 semi-reliable weather monitoring stations on Greenland, when I checked, only 4 had been working in the last 6 days.

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/gcnet/



Now of those, in the last 6 days

GITS has a net air temp of -2 C
NGRIP has a net air temp of -25 C
Summit has a net air temp of -18C
and
TUNU-N has a net air temp of -30C

Lets check back in a Month and see how things are going shall we.

Because, I do believe its a WAY SAFE BET.

Arthur

Well its May.

Wonder how the temps are doing in Greenland?

And more stations are reporting (all temps in degrees C)

GITS continues to be the warmest station with a Low of -6 and a high of -2

South Dome had a Low of -28 and a high of -10

Dye-2 had a low of -23 and a high of -12

NASA-U had a low of -29 and a high of -20

NGRIP had a low of -33 and a high of -10

Summit had a low of -33 and a high of -17

Tunu-N had a low of -32 and a high of -15

The three most Northerly stations sent in no report.

Arthur

This post has been edited by adoucette on May 5 2007, 02:25 PM

And according to Arthur's simplistic logic, as long as the air temperature above the SURFACE of the glacier is below freezing, it will never reduce in mass. Arthur, ever used a snow cave to keep yourself warm in a cold climate? Didn't think so. I have.