Quantcast

Do bloggers know more about sea level change than the NSF?

c.stuartHardwick 2011/11/10 22:20:46
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Read this blog to see why the National Science Foundation should listen to professional scientists instead of members of the lay public. http://cshardwick.wordpress.com/2011/11/10/the-nsf-corrects-a...

Then come back and comment.
Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • sjalan 2011/11/12 22:17:59
    Yes. I read the blog and know that the NSF webmater got had.
    sjalan
    +1
    Not only is the sea rising but just lately a chuck of ice shelf in the Antarctic broke off that is the size of Manhattan and this last summer for the first time in 10000 years the Artic ocean was open all the way across from the Bering Strights to Greenland, the legendary Northwest passage.

    years artic ocean open bering strights greenland legendary northwest passage
  • WGN 2011/11/12 03:57:31
    Yes. Any fifth grader knows melting ice cannot raise sea level.
    WGN
    Ice that is floating in water and melts can not raise sea level UNLESS the ice is made of fresh water and is floating in salt water, and then only by a small amount.
    Fill a glass with ice and fill it to the rim with water. Does the water go over the rim of the glass as it melts? NO.
    The raising of the sea level will be influenced by the ice and snow that is on the LAND, that will melt and run into the sea.
  • c.stuar... WGN 2011/11/12 04:32:21
    c.stuartHardwick
    Multi year pack ice is mostly fresh, and will increase sea level by 2.5% the volume of the fresh water in the ice. It's a small amount, and nothing to be alarmed about but it's a very real amount.

    You are correct though, the real worry is that the land bound ice will melt.
  • NYCbrit 2011/11/11 06:14:26
    No. The NSF had it right the first time.
    NYCbrit
    +1
    They should have revised the paragraph, yes, but complete removal was undesirable. Personally, I'm exhausted by the knee-jerk overreaction to scientific finds, and the inevitable backlash. People become so polarized, as you said. And they use only filtered media info as their "facts".
  • W Voolzk 2011/11/11 04:33:22
    No. The NSF had it right the first time.
    W Voolzk
    Ice does not need to melt. When the tepmerature goes up the molecules of water expand and the Oceans Rise. DUH
  • c.stuar... W Voolzk 2011/11/11 04:37:09
    c.stuartHardwick
    True. Simple expansion can raise sea level by a small amount, melting pack ice by a smaller amount, melting terrestrial ice by a large amount (100 meters given enough time).
  • Pat 2011/11/11 00:23:50
    No. The NSF had it right the first time.
    Pat
    Maybe the NSF should have stood their ground unless it's become inundated with water.
  • c.stuar... Pat 2011/11/11 00:34:50
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    The NSF webmasters should have asked a qualified scientist to revise the paragraph, suggesting that in it's original form, it was inappropriately inflammatory.

    It should have read something like "In addition to increasing salinity, melting pack ice contributes modestly to global sea level rise and serves as an indicator to potentially more troubling inland melt."
  • Rich Matarese 2011/11/10 23:50:46
    Yes. Any fifth grader knows melting ice cannot raise sea level.
    Rich Matarese
    When it comes to bloggers like Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill and Jeff Glassman, yeah, it's entirely likely that honest skeptics will get such facts right.

    I trust the National Science Foundation to precisely the same extent I trust a pack of rabid wolves with my six-year-old granddaughter.

    Hm. And doesn't that give rise to the pleasant thought of throwing the entire National Science Foundation into a fenced compound with pack of rabid wolves?
  • bob h. 2011/11/10 23:41:16
    Yes. I read the blog and know that the NSF webmater got had.
    bob h.
    Who cares? I've spent all my 69 years on one coast or another and could have come up with the same findings with a yard stick. The ocean lever has not gone up.
  • c.stuar... bob h. 2011/11/11 00:53:52
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    See that's exactly why you have to rely on science. Sea levels have gone up 100 meters in the last 20,000 years. On average, that's only 5mm per year on average, or 1.2 inches in 69 years---far smaller than the random variation in that time. But even that is misleading--most of that change occured before 10,000 years ago, and in the last thirty years, the real--measured--change has averages 1.3mm per year.

    Here is the reality:
    1. Sea level has been increasing for a long time and will continue to increase for a long time.
    2. Human activities are a contributing factor. No one know how much, but it's probably modest at this time.
    3. The scientific community only notices these changes late in the game, and the overreaction of a few needlessly polarized the issue. (Eliminating cars for a wold of flower children might help, but only a bit, and not enough to justify the new problems it created.
    4. Conservative overreaction to this overreaction has only made the needless polarization worse. Climate IS changing. Sea levels ARE rising. Pretending that all the world climatologists are just drug addled liberals will not make it stop.
    5. This is all going to continue. We are NOT going to stop, or even curtail fossil fuel use because of it, though we can and should slow expansion where we can.
    6...





    See that's exactly why you have to rely on science. Sea levels have gone up 100 meters in the last 20,000 years. On average, that's only 5mm per year on average, or 1.2 inches in 69 years---far smaller than the random variation in that time. But even that is misleading--most of that change occured before 10,000 years ago, and in the last thirty years, the real--measured--change has averages 1.3mm per year.

    Here is the reality:
    1. Sea level has been increasing for a long time and will continue to increase for a long time.
    2. Human activities are a contributing factor. No one know how much, but it's probably modest at this time.
    3. The scientific community only notices these changes late in the game, and the overreaction of a few needlessly polarized the issue. (Eliminating cars for a wold of flower children might help, but only a bit, and not enough to justify the new problems it created.
    4. Conservative overreaction to this overreaction has only made the needless polarization worse. Climate IS changing. Sea levels ARE rising. Pretending that all the world climatologists are just drug addled liberals will not make it stop.
    5. This is all going to continue. We are NOT going to stop, or even curtail fossil fuel use because of it, though we can and should slow expansion where we can.
    6. Long term, we need to ensure that CO2 stays well below the 900 parts per million that we know the biosphere can handle.
    7. Mid-term (next century or so), ocean acidification, accelerated by fossil fuel consumption is probably a bigger risk to more people than seal level, climate change or weather.
    8. Climate change is going to continue. We can adapt by pissing on one another until war and famine break out, or we can use these fancy brains to solve the problems it brings about.
    9. Oh yeah, and at the rate things are going, Antarctica will be the world's bread basket inside 500 years
    10. Lot's of species are going to die. We all like Penguins and Polar bears, but we are not Gods. Deal with it.

    That's the way it is.
    (more)
  • Charles R. Anderson 2011/11/10 23:30:47
    Yes. I read the blog and know that the NSF webmater got had.
    Charles R. Anderson
    However, the entire issue of man-made global warming or even that of melting sea ice due to whatever cause is widely being claimed to be a catastrophe. A 4 cm rise in sea level is in no way a catastrophe. Sea levels have risen much more than that since the end of the Little Ice Age. The coverage and depth of sea ice in the Arctic has varied greatly for many centuries and will continue to do so. The citizen who requested the change was actually more nearly right since the underwater volume of sea ice is not very different than the volume of the melted water from that ice. Those who use the melting of sea ice to cause alarm, which was what the NSF website was playing on, do play on people's imagination that the above water ice will go completely to causing an equal volume of increased seawater.

    One also needs to note that the desalination of the sea ice above the waterline greatly exceeds the desalination of the sea ice below the water line. The ice below the waterline is more dense and most of the ice is below the waterline. Hence, the 2.6% greater volume you talk about applies to only a small part of the sea ice and only to that part which is multi-year sea ice.

    Note also that due to the tilt of the Earth, contractions of sea ice in the arctic are often offset by expansions of the ice pack on Antarctica.
  • c.stuar... Charles... 2011/11/10 23:57:50
    c.stuartHardwick
    Yes and no.

    A 4 cm sea level rise is no big deal, but adds to the total due to thermal expansion and antarctic ice melt. Even that is currently only projected to be modest in the next century. Eventually, there is enough ancient freshwater ice sitting atop Antarctica and Siberia to raise sea levels by 100 meters.

    Sea level was 100 meters higher during much of the cretaceous and 100 meters lower during the height of the ice age. Current climate change is mostly due to the end of that ice age---which, contrary to popular opinion, is still going on and has been abating throughout human history. While burning fossil fuels is unquestionably speeding the process, it is NOT the cause. Pundits on both sides consistently get this wrong. The few inches of sea level rise projected over the next century are mostly NOT anthropogenic. But if we keep burning fossil fuels as we are now, the 100 meter rise over the next few centuries will be.

    No climatologist is worried about annual sea ice extent. Scientists are not stupid. Only permanent ice counts. BTW, as long as permanent ice exists, the last ice age is not over--that's the definition of an ice age. We talk about it ending 10,000 years ago, but in fact, it peaked 20,000 years ago and has been retreating since. 10,000 years ago is when it go...

    Yes and no.

    A 4 cm sea level rise is no big deal, but adds to the total due to thermal expansion and antarctic ice melt. Even that is currently only projected to be modest in the next century. Eventually, there is enough ancient freshwater ice sitting atop Antarctica and Siberia to raise sea levels by 100 meters.

    Sea level was 100 meters higher during much of the cretaceous and 100 meters lower during the height of the ice age. Current climate change is mostly due to the end of that ice age---which, contrary to popular opinion, is still going on and has been abating throughout human history. While burning fossil fuels is unquestionably speeding the process, it is NOT the cause. Pundits on both sides consistently get this wrong. The few inches of sea level rise projected over the next century are mostly NOT anthropogenic. But if we keep burning fossil fuels as we are now, the 100 meter rise over the next few centuries will be.

    No climatologist is worried about annual sea ice extent. Scientists are not stupid. Only permanent ice counts. BTW, as long as permanent ice exists, the last ice age is not over--that's the definition of an ice age. We talk about it ending 10,000 years ago, but in fact, it peaked 20,000 years ago and has been retreating since. 10,000 years ago is when it got warm enough for most of the temperate latitude to be clear of ice and available to human exploitation.

    The 2.6% volume increase accounts for the desalination gradient you speak of and many other factors. Again, while journalist on both side of the issue often are, scientists, as a general rule, are not stupid.
    (more)
  • Charles... c.stuar... 2011/11/17 00:24:02
    Charles R. Anderson
    There is not much reason to believe that the ice on Antarctica will melt, so I am not going to worry about a 100 m rise in sea level. It has been 65.5 million years since the end of the Cretaceous Period, which was a long period with very different climate conditions than we have seen since. It is more likely we will continue to see the swing from glacial periods to interglacial periods we have seen over the last million years.

    Again, I disagree that CO2 emissions by man are undoubtedly speeding the warming process. As for burning fossil fuels, well yes it puts the energy of combustion into the atmosphere and it puts some solar radiation absorbing particulates into the atmosphere which causes some cooling. Whatever the net result, it is so trivial no one has actually been able to measure it. A scientist should therefore hesitate to say "undoubtedly."

    No, the 2.5% volume expansion is the difference between totally desalinated water and frozen, fully salinated seawater. The salination gradient above the water line reduces that volume difference.
  • c.stuar... Charles... 2011/11/11 01:29:37
    c.stuartHardwick
    Thank you for commenting on the blog post. I added a reply that I think you will keenly appreciate.
  • Charles... c.stuar... 2011/11/17 00:25:20
    Charles R. Anderson
    I did indeed.
  • ronbo51 2011/11/10 23:13:39
    Maybe. I didn't read the blog and still think metling ice cannot raise sea le...
    ronbo51
    well, need other here.
    i would ask crab/fishermen in alaskan waters and also in maine waters first, what they are seeing as compared to past generations first.
    and also gulf coast fishers as well. then compare.
    i believe they would have a relative factual knowledge over the too-smart-ass-over-educated-l... science practicioners.
    weve had a lot of fresh water ice being melted from this summer and
    also seeing advancement of some glaciers in alaskan/canadian wilderness as something to note as well. they're not melting fast.
    Icleand/greenland area is over a volcanic hot spots thats moving east. so thats the reason for their metling.
    our Earth is a Dynamic planet. we're just seeing a small glimpse of what used to be and happen on grand scale befor eman walked here.
    been many periods of melt -freeze-melt-freeze. for various reasons.
  • c.stuar... ronbo51 2011/11/10 23:25:29
    c.stuartHardwick
    Interesting. You allude to some of the very reasons we should NOT rely on lay observation but should instead rely on careful science. Fishermen, for example, are subject to all kinds of biases as they go about their lives fishing, making occasional incidental observations, and relying on memory. A scientist, on the other hand, is going to rely on written records, account for the time of year and seasonal variation and so on (as was the case in the cited study).
  • ronbo51 c.stuar... 2011/11/11 00:58:43
    ronbo51
    bull sh-t!
    you dont have a clue.
  • TuringsChild 2011/11/10 22:38:01
    Yes. I read the blog and know that the NSF webmater got had.
    TuringsChild
    The webmaster got had, but it was by the scientists who overstated their case to begin with. Archimedes WAS right, it's just the difference in the weight of salt vs fresh water wasn't accounted for by the blogger. If the scientists hadn't been so set on 'proving' Global Warming, they would have told the truth in the first place, and the blogger wouldn't have had to step in with a PARTIAL correction. Then bringing in extra factors like ice covering land areas after the fact was just an exercise in justifying their original error.

    Sounds like sour grapes to me.
  • c.stuar... Turings... 2011/11/10 22:47:38 (edited)
    c.stuartHardwick
    +2
    Actually, despite a tremendous amount of inexplicable misinformation to the contrary, the science is quite clear. The climate IS warming, and whether it is all the fault of fossil fuels or not, that is certainly accelerating it. The ice covering the land is not a justification for an error, it WAS the error. It was never pack ice that was of concern--but it is the canary in the coal mine.

    EXCEPT, as I kept pointing out, science has long recognized that the pack ice vanished in between the ice ages--which is why I say the arguments on both sides are overreacting. It IS happening, we ARE speeding it along right now, but stopping it is, as the other side screams, quite beyond us--even if we never burned another jot of coal. It's all foolishness, and we ought to be planning for it instead of arguing over it.

    The thing is, we ARE NOT going to curtail fossil fuel use any time soon, so we would be better served looking for solutions to the consequences of climate change than pretending, at this late date, that we can somehow stop it if we all became hippies.
  • Charles... c.stuar... 2011/11/10 23:37:07
    Charles R. Anderson
    +1
    The climate has broadly warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age. There is no good evidence it has warmed at a significantly greater rate lately. In fact, since 1998 we have seen virtually no change in temperatures, though CO2 concentrations have continued to increase. We also do not see the predicted and essential atmospheric temperature increase in the temperate zones at altitudes from 8 to 12 Km. There is no reason to believe CO2 has caused any net temperature increase at this time. The main so-called greenhouse gas actually causes net daily cooling and is vital in keeping us from broiling in the afternoon sun.
  • Rich Ma... Charles... 2011/11/10 23:59:45
    Rich Matarese
    Heresy! Denialist! Skeptic! Truther!

    "Cardinal Fang! Fetch...the Comfy Chair!"
  • c.stuar... Charles... 2011/11/11 01:01:32 (edited)
    c.stuartHardwick
    I am not aware of any direct experimental evidence linking CO2 to global temperaure in a causal relationship. Historically, the two have tracked together. I believe the causal relationship is inferred from the usefulness of mathematical models that assume it to be so, which as any first year statistics student can tell you, is dangerous at best.

    Regardless, CO2 levels have spiked far faster during the last century than sea levels or temperatures and this spike is unprecedented, and clearly due to fossil fuel consumption---as in, we can estimate the total number of tons of CO2 that have been released and the effect they would have and they match the observation. To deny this is just head-in-the sand silliness. Putting suddenly back into circulation gases that have been slowly sequestered over millions of years is dangerous--but levels are still relatively low. The risk is not so much from the quantity, but how quickly it has been released, and how quickly the already heavily impacted marine environment can adapt.

    The earth has survives far, far higher CO2 levels, but has never seen such a surge in one century. We don't know what the sudden change in ocean PH will do.
  • Icarus 2011/11/10 22:30:05
    No. The NSF had it right the first time.
    Icarus
    +1
    To paraphrase someone, probably wrongly - "science should be as simple as possible, but no simpler".
  • c.stuar... Icarus 2011/11/10 22:47:58
    c.stuartHardwick
    +1
    I like it.
  • Rich Ma... Icarus 2011/11/10 23:54:59
    Rich Matarese
    +3
    "It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." (Albert Einstein)

    Very commonly paraphrased as you'd put it.
  • Icarus Rich Ma... 2011/11/11 00:13:40
    Icarus
    Thanks!

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/11/24 16:15:04

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals