At least that’s what it was a decade or so ago when I was deeply involved in examining the models being used. Eventually I lost interest in the models as I concluded they were so riddled with assumptions and so simplistic in execution that they were really no better than wild guesses.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..Mt. Redoubt set to blow

No one should ever, however, suggest that this kind of money represents a conflict of interest for the scientists pushing the paradigm. That would be an attack on science and all scientists everywhere, living or dead.

Greenland ice sheets are in fact mostly over land. Antarctic ice sheets are not nearly as land-based as Greenland’s. Antarctica, in fact, is near desert. The vast majority of antarctic ice is located in "ice shelfs" which are situated on open ocean, and which will not increase sea levels if they melt. The ice that is on land in Antarcica is not likely to melt in any significant volume unless global temperatures rise far more than even the most catastrophic predictions of the Global Warming zealots.

One of the things that cracks me up in the whole "sea levels rise" debate is that the folks who bring that up as a concern by and large are completely ignorant of where the bulk of the rise is supposed to come from. The models which project a 20 foot rise produce most of that increase in sea water volume NOT from melting ice, but from the EXPANSION of sea water as it warms up. If you warm the entire ocean up, just like a metal rod will expand, so will the sea water.

The problem with the model (at least the last time I looked at it) is that it treats sea water as a single lump of water with an average temperature and an average expansion spread across its entire volume. The reality is that sea water is made up of greatly differentiated areas, including the deep ocean where the crushing weight of the water above it quite literally squeezes the heat out of the water and pretty much forces the water to remain just above freezing world-wide. Only a thin layer on top of the sea actually fluctuates much in temperature based on atmospheric conditions or sunshine. So the model is flawed.

The bottom line is that my own personal analysis of the potential for sea water rise is that predictions of 20 foot sea level rises based on a half-degree or a degree raise in global temperatures is very unlikely. And that’s not even taking into account the historical fact that we’ve SEEN such rises in temperature in historic times without such catastrophic sea rises. Why this time would be different is one thing the zealots never explain.

CosmicConservative’s last blog post..More on the abyss?

Thank you. I appreciate your reply and will take it under consideration.

For the moment. I will suggest that oceans have no boundary lines, it isn’t measurable and then there is the atmosphere which also is a water containing vessel the content of which isn’t in global warming categories.

Your observation (literally) of the effect of microwaving the ice cubes in the glass are correct.

But the mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are not in Earth’s oceans. They are situated mainly on dry land.  If and when they melt through climate change, the water from the icemelt will be added to the volumetric measure of the earth’s oceans. 

Rising and falling ocean levels have happened in coincidence with ice ages and their aftermath. I have read some materials written by appropriately credible scientists which show that rising and falling ocean levels may in fact be a regular cycle that starts these ice ages and then reverses them, based on affected ocean currents in the north Atlantic ocean.

But I see little evidence that mankind’s puny efforts are themselves melting the ice masses in either polar hemispheres.

Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI 

In January 2007, Nancy Pelosi announced the Creation of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.  
 

She said,  

“…For America to be safe and strong, we must take further decisive action now to free our country of its dependence on foreign energy sources and to confront the rising tide of global warming…..”

We now fast forward to 2009, to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, the illustrious Rep. Edward J. Markey.

Kindly note the first two lines of the web page:

“Greenland is the current epicenter of global warming, with rapid glacial melting producing sea-level rise now, and 20 feet or more later if the entire ice cap melts.

In 2005, a new island appeared off the coast of Greenland, suddenly separated from the mainland by the melting of Greenland’s enormous ice sheet, a development that is being seen as one of the most alarming signs of global warming.” (presumably in spite of the rising 20 foot sea level).

Analysis:

Thesis: Frozen Ice does actually occupy the same volumetric space as does (liquid) water..

Proof: Take a ten ounce tumbler add as many ice cubes as possible, then add water approximately 5 ounces and defrost in your microwave. See how much water overflows on the floor of the microwave oven.

Conclusions:

No water flows over the tumbler.

New Islands will not appear.

But it’s possible that Iceland will turn into another Miami Beach, then, where will we be ?

This our current government — the very same what brought us new Pres. Barack Obama

That’s because "science" is a merely a method for seeking out truth, nothing more. And, generally speaking, science is supposed to be tentative & provisional — new facts are supposed to change the theory. It was never supposed to be a general theory of everything because, science is limited to a large extent.

At the upper levels, most scientists are simply politicians or fundraisers.
Also, historically, science is used by crusaders to make the case for a popular cause:

1. The eugenics movement was based on science;

2. The environmental movement was based on science;

3. The War on Cancer was based on science;

4. Fighting AIDS is based on science.

All 4 are political movements, using and abusing science to achieve a political end.

Ironically, sometimes that end, is in fact desirable. I like clean water, clean rivers, clean skies — but sadly, that’s more of a byproduct of a zealous  green movement that feeds off itself, using "science" to achieve power.

It’s a rough world out there!

HB

The answer from the Climate Change Community wll likely be the same as the last: clam up almost completely, and try to dismiss these charges as yesterday’s news.