About those rising Global Sea Levels

Here is another common sense (and scientific) reason why the nonsense that NASA tells you about anticipated global sea level rise is nonsense.

First, both NASA and IPCC tell you that increase in Global Sea Levels (GSL) will come about half from "volumetric expansion of water" and half from water melting from glaciers.

Let's take glaciers first. For a 2 C or 3 C increase in average global temperature to make a big difference in melting of ice in Antarctica and Greenland (all the rest of ice is irrelevant), major portions of Greenland and Antarctica would have to be very close to average temperature of 0 C all year round. Because water melts at over Zero C. If on the South Pole temperature "warms up" from -30 to even - 20 all year long, that will not result in any melting ice whatsoever.

Therefore, the relevant areas of ice melt are only on the fringes of both Greenland and Antarctica which in terms of volume of ice account for a truly minuscule portion of overall ice mass. The average height of ice in Antarctica is 1.9 km. Which means in the middle of it, the ice depth is as high or higher as the Alps in Europe or the Rockies in North America. So imagine a sheet of ice the height of Mt. Blanc gradually sloping towards the shores of Normandy. Where ice meets the sea, it is much less thick - from 100 meters to a few hundred meters. So loss of "ice cover" there means much less in volume than it would mean 100 km inland into the Antarctic continent. Over 95% of Antarctica has average annual temperatures below -20 C. Nothing ever melts there unless on a stove. Average annual temperature for the "coast" is -10 C. So even if things warmed up by 5 C in the next 100 years, for vast majority of Antarctica this would make no difference at all in volume of ice melting.

Greenland is in many respects similar and most of it experiences no ice melt other than where the ice touches the sea. And Greenland as a whole is only 9% of all ice on Earth while Antarctica is 90%.

So this notion that there is "tipping point" at some level between 2 C and 4 C warmer than now, when it comes to ice melting and therefore global sea levels dramatically rising is pretty much bogus. Nobody has shown calculations which correspond to observed reality that would show this happening.

And the "thermal expansion" part is no less murky. Water happens to be a substance which has its smallest volume at 4 C. This means that volume of water DECREASES as it warms up from 1 C to 4 C. How much of the water in the world is at that temperature range? I don't know but nobody else does either. And adjustments that have to be made to assumptions of volumetric expansion are massive too. When moon's gravity makes tides emerge that are meters in height, we are supposed to think that calculations of volumetric expansion can be accurate in millimeters? I am not convinced.

Another part of it that temperatures at the surface change quite a bit but temperature changes in deep ocean are small or non existent. And 90% of all volume of water in oceans is in deep ocean where average temperature is 0-3 C and probably has been that for a few million years.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Do we really "deserve to be happy"?

Happiness is not an evolutionary prerequisite. Nothing in the process of evolution selects for happiness (or lack thereof). Evolution cares about survival of the species and no advantages are conferred upon happy as opposed to less so individuals. The "happiness industry" which convinces people that they "deserve to be happy" and in fact makes them miserable because they are not as happy as they "deserve to be", is a recent phenomenon. When cave men brought home the antelope and everybody ate it around the fire, there was no cave man equivalent of Dr. Phil walking around trying to asses the degree of happiness of the group. In the Middle Ages, happiness was defined as not having the plague. It is only in recent times that the "entitlement of happiness" came about and as more of the basic needs were no longer an acute issue, mankind went searching for the next thing that will make them miserable. Total bliss or complete happiness is not a default
Read more

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more