Thread: A simple calculation about global warming.

Hello,everyone.
Fisrt,I am sorry for my bad Englsih because I am not a native English speaker. But can anyone give some comments,please?
The global warming and the global climate change are more and more known,and the issue of melted Antarctica ice made me want to figure out and calculate it. I am curious if all Antarctica ice is melted,how many meters of water will raise from oceans? And then I used my limited knowledge to calculate it. This question just took me 3 minutes to get the result without complex equations. Simple calculation.

First,I need some basic info and I found it on wiki.

1. earth Surface area 361,132,000 km² water
2. Antarctica (ice-covered) 13,720,000 km²
3. About 98% of Antarctica is covered by ice (13,720,000 km²), which averages at least 1.6 kilometres (1.0 mi) in thickness.

When I got the above numbers,I knew I can get an answer then.
Note:Calculation A ignores the densities difference between ice and water.

First, 13720000 / 361132000 =0.037991648
1 / 0.037991648 =26.32157468 ===> This means about 26 meters of Antarctica ice layer can fill with one meter of all oceans layer.
volume check : 13720000km² x 26.32157468m = 361132000km² x 1m
and then come to 3. ===>1.6km = 1600m
1600 / 26.32157468 = 60.7866368m ===> This is the result. The raise amount of the water on the ocean.
When the result came out,I was surprised it is close to the number scientists ever announced (60-70 meters)

But when I counted the densities difference between ice and water,I got a small number.

Calculation B
Ice density is 0.917 g/cm³ at 0°C. Water density is almost 1 g/cm³ at 0°C
When ice melts into water,the volume will shrink to 91.7%.
For example. 100 cm³ ice melts to 91.7 cm³ water. Then 100 cm³ ice / 0.917 = 100 cm³ water
Thus,13720000km x 26.32157468m / 0.917 = 13720000km x 28.70400728m
1600 / 28.70400728 = 55.74134595m ( smaller number than calculation A)

Finally,is my simple way a good try and decent?
Can anyone give some comments? Thanks

Well, I didn't check your math, but I believe 65 meters is the accepted answer. I recently used 71 meters for both Greenland and Antarctica.

A more interesting problem is to calculate how much energy it takes to melt the ice. Some of it is so far below freezing, it adds to the problem without knowing an average temperature for all that mass.

Now let me say upfront, I am not a believer of Anthropogenic forces being the major cause for the warming we have experienced these last 300+ years. I have not come close to pinning down a firm number for CO2, but I believe it to be between about 1/6th to 1/3rd of the warming we have seen.

I believe solar changes to be the major cause for the changes we have seen, and soot the second cause. Afterall, if you look to see how much the northern hemisphere is melting compared to the southern hemisphere, Antarctica is actually real stable compared to the North. There is no large change in temperature in the south, but there is in the North. If CO2 was the cause, shouldn't the southern pole warm too by a similar amount?

Sandett good job.
-Also interesting is that average rise would not be evenly distributed. It would be higher in the Northern hemisphere and less rise in the Southern Hemisphere simply due to the gravitational effects of the mass redistribution from the Southern Pole and isostatic adjustment.

WC. "Some of it is so far below freezing, it adds to the problem without knowing an average temperature for all that mass. "
It wouldnt add very much, the latent head of fusion and evaporation is much higher than energy needed to get it to melting temperatures.

The Northern hemisphere is more temperature sensitive from most global causes to the energy balance because it has a higher amount of land mass...whether it be solar, green house gas. Seasonal variation is the same way.

Somewhere in there you might want to throw in a couple of adjustments: fresh water from melting ice is not as dense as sea water, and the ice deep under the surface of Antarctica is compressed - significantly more dense, meaning more grams per volume.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

WC. "Some of it is so far below freezing, it adds to the problem without knowing an average temperature for all that mass. "
It wouldnt add very much, the latent head of fusion and evaporation is much higher than energy needed to get it to melting temperatures.

I know that. I figure it might add about 10% to the energy required to melt it, but it could be more of less.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The Northern hemisphere is more temperature sensitive from most global causes to the energy balance because it has a higher amount of land mass...whether it be solar, green house gas. Seasonal variation is the same way.

That may be so. Still, Antarctica has almost no long term change in ice. I cannot help but think that soot is the major cause of the northern ice melting. It dramatically changes the emissivity and albedo of the ice.

Originally Posted by cobra

That may be so. Still, Antarctica has almost no long term change in ice. I cannot help but think that soot is the major cause of the northern ice melting.

Antarctica has had considerable melting and glacial speedup - the comparatively low net loss of ice is from extra snow deposition.

Being a large continent, and high, many of the ice sheets in Antarctica are dry - limited by lack of precipitation, rather than warmth. There are permanently frozen regions of Antarctica that lack any ice or snow cover at all. An atmospheric warming of the air masses moving over the surrounding ocean and outer (lower) snow and ice would be expected to bring in more snow, leading to gains in ice mass, in much of Antarctica.

That does not mean soot is only a small factor in the Arctic. It means that the effects of CO2 greenhouse heat trapping are and will be visible in the Antarctic.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

That may be so. Still, Antarctica has almost no long term change in ice. I cannot help but think that soot is the major cause of the northern ice melting.

Antarctica has had considerable melting and glacial speedup - the comparatively low net loss of ice is from extra snow deposition.

Being a large continent, and high, many of the ice sheets in Antarctica are dry - limited by lack of precipitation, rather than warmth. There are permanently frozen regions of Antarctica that lack any ice or snow cover at all. An atmospheric warming of the air masses moving over the surrounding ocean and outer (lower) snow and ice would be expected to bring in more snow, leading to gains in ice mass, in much of Antarctica.

Why should the flow, that is always there, stay a constant rate? Part of the physics, when gravity and elevation is involved dictates that the glaciers will flow faster is they have a larger buildup from precipitation.

Originally Posted by iceaura

That does not mean soot is only a small factor in the Arctic. It means that the effects of CO2 greenhouse heat trapping are and will be visible in the Antarctic.

Yet there is no significant change for Antarctica.

If CO2 is as much a greenhouse gas as you guys say, then Antarctica should be melting far more! Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

How does TSI and albedo on the surface of sea ice compare with heat from water underneath. What's the greater ice-loss cause?

Remember the West Antarctic ice sheet has fragmented and amalgamated many times in the past, whereas the East Antarctic is more stable due to it being predominately above sea-level.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If CO2 is as much a greenhouse gas as you guys say, then Antarctica should be melting far more! Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

As you've already pointed out the Antartic is well below freezing, and that's true even during the summer months over most of the ice cap. There can be no increase in melting until the temperatuere are above freezing--so no we wouldn't expect a rapid increase in melting there at all until it is MUCH warmer.

Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

This doesn't even make sense. What the graphs say, is that if a photon within that range hits a CO2 molecule, then it will be absorbed. The densities in the atmosphere determine how many photons actually hit CO2 molecules during its way up, as well as how often the average re-emitted photon will be reabsorbed by another before leaving the atmosphere altogether. Quite obviously increasing the CO2 concentration would increase the greenhouse effect. Surely you know this?

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

This doesn't even make sense. What the graphs say, is that if a photon within that range hits a CO2 molecule, then it will be absorbed. The densities in the atmosphere determine how many photons actually hit CO2 molecules during its way up, as well as how often the average re-emitted photon will be reabsorbed by another before leaving the atmosphere altogether. Quite obviously increasing the CO2 concentration would increase the greenhouse effect. Surely you know this?

It is a matter of strongly diminishing returns. As CO2 concentration increases, the mean distance that an adsorbed and re-emitted photon travels decreases, as the distance decreases the temperature difference approaches zero and the ratio of emitted to adsorbed approaches one and the warming effect goes to zero. When concentrations are very low (1-50 ppm) or when the molecules are not uniformly distributed, the greenhouse effect can be strong, but when the subject molecules are evenly distributed or as the concentration approaches 400-500 ppm the effect is drastically reduced. Over 700 ppm, further effect is insignificant.

cypress, what you describe is not the way the radiative transfer of energy in an atmosphere actually works. It might be so in a tube filled with gas, however.

Originally Posted by KALSTER

Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

This doesn't even make sense. What the graphs say, is that if a photon within that range hits a CO2 molecule, then it will be absorbed. The densities in the atmosphere determine how many photons actually hit CO2 molecules during its way up, as well as how often the average re-emitted photon will be reabsorbed by another before leaving the atmosphere altogether. Quite obviously increasing the CO2 concentration would increase the greenhouse effect. Surely you know this?

OK, slow down and remember how the physics works for a minute.

You have this photon absorbed by CO2. It heats up. When this heat turns around and re-emits a photon, the CO2 cools back down.

Conservation of energy, right? Lost energy, lost heat. If you lose this energy, you lose heat.

Sure, it can go on to warm again by re-absorption, but you cannot generate more energy than you start with.

Originally Posted by cypress

As CO2 concentration increases, the mean distance that an adsorbed and re-emitted photon travels decreases, as the distance decreases the temperature difference approaches zero and the ratio of emitted to adsorbed approaches one and the warming effect goes to zero. When concentrations are very low (1-50 ppm) or when the molecules are not uniformly distributed, the greenhouse effect can be strong, but when the subject molecules are evenly distributed or as the concentration approaches 400-500 ppm the effect is drastically reduced. Over 700 ppm, further effect is insignificant.

Something to point out that I should have before. You toggled a memory.

This is probably one reason why we see higher temperature readings. The increased CO2 warms the air so little, but it warms it more closer to the surface. Temperature stations are what, maybe 6 ft. above the ground? It would be plausible that any time we have almost no wind, that the 6 ft. elevation warms much more than in the past.

I have never seen validation of this, but it makes sense. I have read someplace that the majority of greenhouse gas warning occurs in the first 30 ft above the surface. Again, I do not stick to this, because I have not been able to independently verify this claim, and it could be bunk. The way greenhouse gasses work though, I believe the underlining concept, but I would say 30 ft. is a bit small.

If we look at greenhouse gasses more like a half-life (power) situation, lets say for example at a given concentration, CO2 absorbs half the photons at 1000 meters. Then the remaining half travel another 1000 m before half of them are absorbed. Another 1000 m. and and now 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 are absorbed, and it goes on. Suppose this was the situation for 1750 at 280 ppm. If we assume 2005 for 389 ppm, then we have the same number of CO2 at 719.8 meters instead of 1000 meters.

Even 1000 meters for half the energy being absorbed seems high, but I think I made my point.

I think this type of a concept would show a more linear relationship to land based temperature monitoring.

OK, slow down and remember how the physics works for a minute.

You have this photon absorbed by CO2. It heats up. When this heat turns around and re-emits a photon, the CO2 cools back down.

Conservation of energy, right? Lost energy, lost heat. If you lose this energy, you lose heat.

Sure, it can go on to warm again by re-absorption, but you cannot generate more energy than you start with.
_________________

WildCobra, that does not answer my concerns with that first claim of yours, nor does it even answer anything else (nor tell me anything new). The amount of energy in the atmosphere is due to the time it takes for a certain amount of energy to leave the earth system. More CO2 means it takes longer, so the energy content in the climate system increases. CO2 also not only re-emmist the photons, but often bump into other molecules and spread the energy that way. Simple fact: More CO2 in the atmosphere means more energy in the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by cobra

Yet there is no significant change for Antarctica.

If CO2 is as much a greenhouse gas as you guys say, then Antarctica should be melting far more!

Antarctica is melting more.

It is also snowing more, in places. The net depends on the place.

Both of those match predictions from greenhouse gas warming.

Originally Posted by cobra

Temperature stations are what, maybe 6 ft. above the ground?

Except where they aren't, and in situations like weather balloons and satellites and airplanes, and in all the other standard ways that weather forecasters develop temperature profiles to diagnose fronts and convection and so forth, as has been normal for many decades now.

These discussions are veering into absurdity.

Originally Posted by iceaura

These discussions are veering into absurdity.

For clarification purposes, they did not "veer" there, they "began" there. 8)

Originally Posted by KALSTER

WildCobra, that does not answer my concerns with that first claim of yours, nor does it even answer anything else (nor tell me anything new). The amount of energy in the atmosphere is due to the time it takes for a certain amount of energy to leave the earth system. More CO2 means it takes longer, so the energy content in the climate system increases. CO2 also not only re-emmist the photons, but often bump into other molecules and spread the energy that way. Simple fact: More CO2 in the atmosphere means more energy in the atmosphere.

OK, as long as we agree there is no free energy.

Now if time is what you mean, then I say that's the wrong way to look at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that what matters is the balance. The earth will heat up or cool down to achieve an energy balance based on several factors. I think my explaination was the correct one, but if I'm wrong, please explain to me how the energy staying around longer causes more heat. I don't think it matters. It ends up being the same difference as making the escape window for energy smaller like I explained in this thread or another.

OK, as long as we agree there is no free energy.

Now if time is what you mean, then I say that's the wrong way to look at it. Maybe I'm wrong, but it appears to me that what matters is the balance. The earth will heat up or cool down to achieve an energy balance based on several factors. I think my explaination was the correct one, but if I'm wrong, please explain to me how the energy staying around longer causes more heat. I don't think it matters. It ends up being the same difference as making the escape window for energy smaller like I explained in this thread or another.
_________________

That is how the greenhouse effect works, Wild Cobra. The greenhouse gases delay the release of energy back into space, warming up the atmosphere. Add more greenhouse gases, and the effect is bigger. I don't know what you don't understand about this?

Aside from this, I still ask what you meant with that first statement of yours? Let me quote that bit again with my question:

Thing is, CO2 cannot increase warming by much more than it already does. You apparently don't look at graphs that show CO2 absorption at near 100% of the spectra it vibrates to.

This doesn't even make sense. What the graphs say, is that if a photon within that range hits a CO2 molecule, then it will be absorbed. The densities in the atmosphere determine how many photons actually hit CO2 molecules during its way up, as well as how often the average re-emitted photon will be reabsorbed by another before leaving the atmosphere altogether. Quite obviously increasing the CO2 concentration would increase the greenhouse effect. Surely you know this?

Maybe I misunderstood what you were talking about? Because if you were talking about graphs showing absorption bands, then my question stands.

It would sure be nice if this tread remained about polar ice balance and sea level instead of being hyjacked.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Sandett good job.
-Also interesting is that average rise would not be evenly distributed. It would be higher in the Northern hemisphere and less rise in the Southern Hemisphere simply due to the gravitational effects of the mass redistribution from the Southern Pole and isostatic adjustment.
The Northern hemisphere is more temperature sensitive from most global causes to the energy balance because it has a higher amount of land mass...whether it be solar, green house gas. Seasonal variation is the same way.

Thanks for replies.
And in fact,the step one of calculation A can be simplified. The extra progress just explains clear without pictures.
Thus,
361132000 / 13720000 = 26.32157468
1600 / 26.32157468 ~ 60.78m
2 steps to get the result. :P

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

It would sure be nice if this tread remained about polar ice balance and sea level instead of being hyjacked.

I agree. I started a thread for this discussion:

Geoscience of Greenhouse Gasses

I am one who solidly believe the bulk of the rise in ocean level is by thermal expansion. The ocean has about 361,000,000 sq. km. and a volume of about 1,300,000,000 cubic kilometers. This amounts to about 3601 meters of an average sea depth for calculation purposes. If we take the last 100 years of an approximate 20 cm. (8 in.) in sea level rise, this can be accounted for with just an approximate 0.4 degree increase in average ocean temperature. Though not precise, if we assume an average temperature of 7 C at 3.5% salinity, the density is 1.027445 gm/cm. At 7.4 C, the density is 1.027388 gm/cm. This causes a volume increase of 0.005548%. If we calculate... 1.00005548 x 3601 = 3601.2, or the 20 cm rise in sea level.

The sea temperature varies as does the salinity. Most of the ocean is below 10 C, I arbitrarily used 7C. The salinity varies from 30 to 38 ppt. I used the average 35 ppt, or 3.5%.

I don't know how much of a temperature change has occurred in the ocean as an average I suspect that many people dismiss numbers like 0.005548%, assuming it to small to worry about. I have seen various numbers that suggest 75% to 100% of the rise in sea temperature is due to thermal expansion. I can accept being wrong here if someone can show me some good data behind conclusions.

Here is a water density calculator:

Water Density Calculator

Information on salinity, area, mass, etc:

Wiki: Ocean

Originally Posted by cobra

If we take the last 100 years of an approximate 20 cm. (8 in.) in sea level rise, this can be accounted for with just an approximate 0.4 degree increase in average ocean temperature

A fair amount of the volume of the ocean will contract a bit - not expand - if heated by .4C.

The heating of the entire ocean by .4C would create some huge side effects - everything from methane clathrate dissolution to disruption of major currents and massive ecological changes. It hasn't happened.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Antarctica is melting more.

It is also snowing more, in places. The net depends on the place.

Both of those match predictions from greenhouse gas warming.

Melting more than what? If you mean more than other places, please confirm; I'd understood that pole least affected, and the arctic most affected. In terms of temperature I mean.

How does Antarctic differ in the predictions you're thinking of?

Originally Posted by pong

Melting more than what?

Than it used to be melting.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

If we take the last 100 years of an approximate 20 cm. (8 in.) in sea level rise, this can be accounted for with just an approximate 0.4 degree increase in average ocean temperature

A fair amount of the volume of the ocean will contract a bit - not expand - if heated by .4C.

How do you figure? You mean the small percentage at around or below 4C in temperature? I think you will find that to be a small abound, but yes, it changes the amont slightly.

Originally Posted by iceaura

The heating of the entire ocean by .4C would create some huge side effects - everything from methane clathrate dissolution to disruption of major currents and massive ecological changes. It hasn't happened.

I get rather tired of you changing my words.

0.4C average is not the same as the entire ocean changing by 0.4 C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say average.

As for the validity of your argument, I don't know if that ios true or not. Could it have a mopre daramic effect of ocean acidity? Could acidity be caused by temperature changing the equilibriums rather than just CO2? I'd say yes!

I haven't tried to quantify the warming by area, I not have said the ocean warmed by the average 0.4 C. I am only stating, that a 0.4 C increase would amount to the 20 cm. increased sea level.

Please stop attempting to ridicule my posts without understanding what I say.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I get rather tired of you changing my words.

0.4C average is not the same as the entire ocean changing by 0.4 C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say average.

Iceaura was probably confused because your calculation was done by warming the entire ocean by 0.4C, not just parts of it (which is more realistic but harder to calculate), by >0.4C for a total average of +0.4C increase.

Also, my guess is the average Temperature for the total ocean is probably somewhere around 4C, that is, close to max density.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I get rather tired of you changing my words.

0.4C average is not the same as the entire ocean changing by 0.4 C.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say average.

Iceaura was probably confused because your calculation was done by warming the entire ocean by 0.4C, not just parts of it (which is more realistic but harder to calculate), by >0.4C for a total average of +0.4C increase.

Also, my guess is the average Temperature for the total ocean is probably somewhere around 4C, that is, close to max density.

Wow... 4 C surface maybe, but 4 C would be closer to a 2 meter rise. My biggest queation is that he uses the word "contract." Thing is, how salt water density responds is not the same as pure water density. Using the linked density calculator, at 0 C 3.5% salinity is 1.028131 gm/cm. 1.027812 at 4 C, and 1.027.300 at 8 C.

I am curious where he gets the contraction from? I believe he treats sea water as if it were fresh water.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Also, my guess is the average Temperature for the total ocean is probably somewhere around 4C, that is, close to max density.

I see I misunderstood what you said at first. OK, if we assume the density change for 4 C to 4.4 C, then that would be about a 15 cm rise in sea level.

I was going by 2/3rds of much of the ocean being 4 C or less and 1/3rd quickly to 10 C and rising up into the very warm temperatures. Since the slope at 10 C and above is steep, I figured 7C would be a good calculation point. Maybe lower would be better, but at 3.5% salinity, rather than 4 C, the densest water is at about -3.7 C.

I did a little quick slope estimations. At 0 C, 35 ppm, the slope is about 0.005252% per degree. About 0.0101% at 4 C, 0.0167% at 10 C, 0.0257% at 20 C, and 0.0334% at 30 C.

I've been out of state since Monday (4th) and don't have my computer with me. the POS computer I have access to is rather limited. I cannot open multiple windows easily, no excel etc. I found this site that may be helpful. I just cannot extract the data here.

NODC/NOAA: World Ocean Database and World Ocean Atlas Series

Can we agree that if there is an average 0.4 C increase of ocean temperature, the increase would be between 15 cm to 20 cm?

what seems to be important here is not only what part of the ocean heats up but how the temperature varies with depth
correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that the deep ocean had not changed in temperature (at least not yet) ?

Originally Posted by marnixR

what seems to be important here is not only what part of the ocean heats up but how the temperature varies with depth
correct me if i'm wrong, but i was under the impression that the deep ocean had not changed in temperature (at least not yet) ?

If the deep oceans have warmed at all or not, I don't know. Remember, I started this premise with the idea of "average" meaning some could be minimal or none, and some far more than average.

Mostly, I want to do a few things. Make people think outside the propaganda heard. Make a point that some increase in the oceans level is caused by thermal expansion. And that a very small percentage change makes a notable difference. When we are talking anout over a 3.6 kilometer depth, 20 cm is a small percentage of that. When we fear the changes to come from seeing 20 cm/decade, shouldn't we at least realize that a large part of thact could be from thermal expansion?

I have seen the fears tied with melting and sea level rises, but those voiceing these concerns fail to acknowledge any increased levels with thermal expansion. can we at least try to be realistic about it? I could be wrong about my belief that 75% to 100% of the rising sea level is dueto thermal expansion. That's fine. I just want to prompt others to help find me what the truth is.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have seen the fears tied with melting and sea level rises, but those voiceing these concerns fail to acknowledge any increased levels with thermal expansion. can we at least try to be realistic about it? I could be wrong about my belief that 75% to 100% of the rising sea level is dueto thermal expansion. That's fine. I just want to prompt others to help find me what the truth is.

Try reading to the IPCC reports then:

Factors affecting present day sea level change
Global average sea level is affected by many factors. Our assessment of the most important is as follows.

-Ocean thermal expansion leads to an increase in ocean volume at constant mass. Observational estimates of about 1 mm/yr over recent decades are similar to values of 0.7 to 1.1 mm/yr obtained from Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs) over a comparable period. Averaged over the 20th century, AOGCM simulations result in rates of thermal expansion of 0.3 to 0.7 mm/yr.
-The mass of the ocean, and thus sea level, changes as water is exchanged with glaciers and ice caps. Observational and modelling studies of glaciers and ice caps indicate a contribution to sea level rise of 0.2 to 0.4 mm/yr averaged over the 20th century.
-Climate changes during the 20th century are estimated from modelling studies to have led to contributions of between ?0.2 and 0.0 mm/yr from Antarctica (the results of increasing precipitation) and 0.0 to 0.1 mm/yr from Greenland (from changes in both precipitation and runoff).
-Greenland and Antarctica have contributed 0.0 to 0.5 mm/yr over the 20th century as a result of long-term adjustment to past climate changes.
-Changes in terrestrial storage of water over the period 1910 to 1990 are estimated to have contributed from ?1.1 to +0.4 mm/yr of sea level rise.

Erm, has Archimedes' Principle been considered at any stage? The majority of the ice will melt, only to occupy the same space it did before anyway. The only ice which can contribute realistically to rising sea levels is ice which is held above sea level by some landmass or other.

The mass of the ocean, and thus sea level, changes as water is exchanged with glaciers and ice caps.

Glaciers and ice caps are on land.

Fair enough, must have missed that part.

Originally Posted by Bunbury

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I have seen the fears tied with melting and sea level rises, but those voiceing these concerns fail to acknowledge any increased levels with thermal expansion.

Try reading to the IPCC reports then:

I agree, the IPCC does mention it. I have known this, in fact, their high estimate is 7 cm of the 20 cm of what we have seen for the 20th century. By what your Working Group I: The Scientific Basis; Executive Summary says.

I mean those who are loud about scaring people. They scare those who fail to actually read material and check, all they hear is the fearmongering.

Now if you haven't noticed, I am one who does not believe the IPCC and have shown falsehoods in their report from time to time. I simply do not trust that political body.

[quote="Wild Cobra"]

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I mean those who are loud about scaring people. They scare those who fail to actually read material and check, all they hear is the fearmongering.

Who are the fearmongers who don't know that water expands when heated above 4C? Do you have some names please?

[quote="Bunbury"]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I mean those who are loud about scaring people. They scare those who fail to actually read material and check, all they hear is the fearmongering.

Who are the fearmongers who don't know that water expands when heated above 4C? Do you have some names please?

Here are some frear mongering examples. I notice you changed what WC said to include the requirement that they be ignorant of thermal expansion which of course most would not be.

I have seen the fears tied with melting and sea level rises, but those voiceing these concerns fail to acknowledge any increased levels with thermal expansion.

Perhaps you didn't notice that WC's complaint was about "fearmongers" not understanding about thermal expansion, the implication being that WC with his excel graphs is better equipped than the scientific community to predict what will happen in the future.

So from your links we have Jim Hansen saying this:

The rate of sea level rise over the 20th century was itself probably greater than the rate in the prior millennium, and this is due at least in part to human activity. About half of the increase is accounted for by thermal expansion of ocean water as a result of global warming. Melting mountain glaciers worldwide are responsible for several centimetres of the increase

I already quoted the IPCC.

Since it is quite obvious that climate scientists understand the mechanics of thermal expansion it is equally obvious that WC and you are for some weird reason intent on obfuscating the real issue which is that human activity is causing climate change which is causing sea levels to rise.

I thought it was obvious that prominent people out there mention catasprohic sea level rises without quantifying the thremal expansion aspect. They state it in such ways that it appears as all man made some time. I don't feel like going much farther than that. Only that both sides of the topic are seldom seen by those not informed in these areas. To go farther and name names would include those with political agenda's, and I would prefer not to make this into a political debate.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

I thought it was obvious that prominent people out there mention catasprohic sea level rises without quantifying the thremal expansion aspect. They state it in such ways that it appears as all man made some time. I don't feel like going much farther than that. Only that both sides of the topic are seldom seen by those not informed in these areas. To go farther and name names would include those with political agenda's, and I would prefer not to make this into a political debate.

Couple reasons for this though.

Those prominent people you're talking about aren't scientist, because the scientist publishing about sea level rise are talking about expansion, melt as well as other terms. They also know the proportion of rise attribute to melt versus expansion goes up dramatically with time. The fact that something like half has been expansion during the past hundred years is both well known and has little to do with the "catastrophic" (what ever that means) predictions of the future.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Those prominent people you're talking about aren't scientist, because the scientist publishing about sea level rise are talking about expansion, melt as well as other terms.

But the public listens to them, and it appears several people here without understanding the scince behind it also.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

They also know the proportion of rise attribute to melt versus expansion goes up dramatically with time.

I agree that occurs. I don't know if I would say dramatically, but yes. It's natural coming out of an ice age. I don't believe we have stopped warming from natural varients that took us out of the last ice age. My primary reason is that the eccentricity of the earth will not take it's minimum value for another 26 K years.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

The fact that something like half has been expansion during the past hundred years is both well known and has little to do with the "catastrophic" (what ever that means) predictions of the future.

I'm glad you agree.

Again, I really don't think many people understand that thermal expansion is relavant in the rising level. Of all the energy it took to melt the glaciers and caps already, for what? A 5 cm +/- 5 cm rise over the last 100 years, I find the term "catastrophic" way past unreasonable activism on the topic.

[quote="Bunbury"]

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by Bunbury

I mean those who are loud about scaring people. They scare those who fail to actually read material and check, all they hear is the fearmongering.

Who are the fearmongers who don't know that water expands when heated above 4C? Do you have some names please?

Yes, but sea water at 3.5% salinity starts expanding at -3.7 (yes minus) C rather than +4 C for fresh water.

Quotes?

I've seen the 4 C used by alarmists in places. I'm not going to bother searching. Why should I? Even here, you and others say 4 C... It's -3.7 C!

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Again, I really don't think many people understand that thermal expansion is relavant in the rising level. Of all the energy it took to melt the glaciers and caps already, for what? A 5 cm +/- 5 cm rise over the last 100 years, I find the term "catastrophic" way past unreasonable activism on the topic.

I'll share here something I recently shared in one of the other twenty active threads we have on this topic.


http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroo.../200606-1.html

Sea level isn't, well, level. Nor is the rate by which sea level has been rising over the past few decades, but the trend is clearly up. Global sea level has risen an average of three millimeters (0.1 inch) per year since 1993. Rising seas have the potential to affect billions of people around the globe, not just those living near coastlines.

<...>

Researchers say that about half of the rise in global sea level since 1993 is due to thermal expansion of the ocean and about half to melting ice. As Earth warms, these proportions are likely to change with dramatic results.

"More heat is coming into Earth's atmosphere than is going out," says Dr. Lee-Lueng Fu, project scientist for the Jason mission. "Over the past 40 years, the ocean has absorbed 84 percent of this excess heat--enough heat to warm the entire atmosphere by 27 degrees Celsius (49 degrees Fahrenheit)." The ocean has been able to absorb this heat by mixing warm surface water with much colder water from its depths, he explains. "The question is how long can it continue to do this."

Add more heat to the oceans, already Earth's largest storehouse of solar radiation, not only does global sea level rise due to thermal expansion but circulation patterns could change and affect the ocean's ability to store more heat in the future.

Excess heat that doesn't go into the ocean has to go somewhere. If it's melting ice, the effect on sea level will be immense. Melting, not warming, has the biggest potential to raise sea level. "If you warm up the ocean, it will rise perhaps half a meter (1.6 feet)," says JPL researcher Dr. Eric Rignot. "If you melt land ice, you could raise sea level by 70 meters (230 feet). The real concern over the long term is the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. With thermal expansion, the coastlines erode; with the ice sheets melting completely, you are talking about cities and states under water."

Originally Posted by inow

I'll share here something I recently shared in one of the other twenty active threads we have on this topic.

http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/newsroo.../200606-1.html

Sea level isn't, well, level....

So does that mean you agree there is lag?

Unrelated non-sequitur.

Originally Posted by inow

Unrelated non-sequitur.

Yes, I understand.

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

Wiki search: climatic lag

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Unrelated non-sequitur.

Yes, I understand.

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

No, apparently you don't understand. I've not engaged you on the issue of lag. Would you like to look behind door number two (or, quote me somewhere which demonstrates otherwise)?

Regardless, the link and quote I shared pertained to sea levels, not lags or temps.

Originally Posted by inow

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by inow

Unrelated non-sequitur.

Yes, I understand.

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

No, apparently you don't understand. I've not engaged you on the issue of lag. Would you like to look behind door number two (or, quote me somewhere which demonstrates otherwise)?

Regardless, the link and quote I shared pertained to sea levels, not lags or temps.

OK, if you insist. However, any time I have refered to lags, you say they don't exist. I'm done pounding my head into that brick wall.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

Originally Posted by iNow

No, apparently you don't understand. I've not engaged you on the issue of lag. Would you like to look behind door number two (or, quote me somewhere which demonstrates otherwise)?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK, if you insist. However, any time I have refered to lags, you say they don't exist.

Would you stop? You are wrong. I have done no such thing. If you wish to continue asserting otherwise, then it's time to put up or shut up, and quote me. You can't, because I have not said any such thing.

Idiots. Good grief.

Originally Posted by cobra

How do you figure? You mean the small percentage at around or below 4C in temperature?

The percentage of the ocean around or below the critical temp (which varies by location and depth) is not small, and its location (Antarctic ocean, compressed deep water, etc) is critical.

Originally Posted by cobra

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say average.

And correct me if I'm wrong but you did calculate the expansion on the basis of the entire ocean at 7C evenly changing by that "average" amount.

I'm pointing out that the exact volume being warmed, its status, makes a very large difference in the resultant expansion. So your calculation there, as usual, is almost without relevance to the physical scene you are attempting to discuss.

Originally Posted by cobra

Can we agree that if there is an average 0.4 C increase of ocean temperature, the increase would be between 15 cm to 20 cm?

No. You have to specify the water being warmed.

Originally Posted by cobra

Make a point that some increase in the oceans level is caused by thermal expansion.

Everyone's been taking that for granted for years now.

Originally Posted by cobra

I don't believe we have stopped warming from natural varients that took us out of the last ice age.

That's because you are not well informed.

Originally Posted by cobra

I've seen the 4 C used by alarmists in places. I'm not going to bother searching. Why should I? Even here, you and others say 4 C... It's -3.7 C!

So?

Originally Posted by cobra

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

No one on this or any other thread in this forum has denied the possible existence of any lags.

The objection to your bullshit comes from the fact that you are using the presumed existence of lags to avoid confronting the known absence of immediate effects where they would exist, if your speculations were informed and accurate.

I noticed you didn't address my questions or respond with any relavance.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

How do you figure? You mean the small percentage at around or below 4C in temperature?

The percentage of the ocean around or below the critical temp (which varies by location and depth) is not small, and its location (Antarctic ocean, compressed deep water, etc) is critical.

I hope you don't mean Critical Point. Please explain what you call "critical temperature."

I mean you did not address the difference in water density. It is obvious you thought that sea water is most dense at 4 C like pure water is. You were only 7.7 degrees off, or else how can warming cause contraction? Are you saying there are places in the ocean that are belowe -3.7 C?

Please, it was you that said some will expand, and some will contract... right?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I did say average.

And correct me if I'm wrong but you did calculate the expansion on the basis of the entire ocean at 7C evenly changing by that "average" amount.

I never put that in the context as an exact value. Please don't make such erroneous assumptions. It looks bad on you, not me. My primary purpose is to show relavance. Average is used in different ways. If you understand science as well as you like us to believe, then you are fully aware of that fact, and are just trying to antagonise me. I was making a point that said average can account for the sea level rise. Not that it does.

Originally Posted by iceaura

I'm pointing out that the exact volume being warmed, its status, makes a very large difference in the resultant expansion. So your calculation there, as usual, is almost without relevance to the physical scene you are attempting to discuss.

Why do you assume I don't already know this? Especially whan you are the one that confuses 4 C for fresh water with -3.7 C for water with 3.5% salinity?

Again, you are only 7.7 degrees off.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Can we agree that if there is an average 0.4 C increase of ocean temperature, the increase would be between 15 cm to 20 cm?

No. You have to specify the water being warmed.

I lowered the average starting temperature which gives the 15 cm value. I cannot believe you will not accept that value.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Make a point that some increase in the oceans level is caused by thermal expansion.

Everyone's been taking that for granted for years now.

Sure, in the sciences that are actually honest and calculated. I mean those put out in the public at large. Remember, there are actually ony a few people in this forum that understand science with any decent level of proficiency. At least that is evident to me. Isn't it to you? Therefore, I think it has a place to be discussed.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

I don't believe we have stopped warming from natural varients that took us out of the last ice age.

That's because you are not well informed.

I tend to believe I am far more informed than you. especially when you get simple facts wrong, and fail to admit it afterwards.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

No one on this or any other thread in this forum has denied the possible existence of any lags.

Inow has. He has several times, dismissing possible lags. He didn't say I was wrong about the period of lag, but that there is no lag, on at least two topics.

Originally Posted by iceaura

The objection to your bullshit comes from the fact that you are using the presumed existence of lags to avoid confronting the known absence of immediate effects where they would exist, if your speculations were informed and accurate.

No, I am not using it that way. I do not pretend to have all the answers. I am offering plausible alternatives, that you flat out reject. Who is doing the presuming, or should I say denying? With all I have seen, these alternative are far more likely than the effect you and others allow for CO2, which there is no scientific evidence. It is just hypothetical, but you guys treat it as fact.

I am appauld that so many people in a science forum trust the word of a scientific topic that has become so politicised. Myself, I have to see tangible data before I believe anything that becomes political, and the tangible evidence out there does not support CO2 as the major contributor to warming. Correlation does not mean causation, and that is all there is to support the degree to which CO2 has an effect.

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by cobra

You dug yourself into the position that lag does not exists, and you will not admit you were wrong.

Originally Posted by iceaura

No one on this or any other thread in this forum has denied the possible existence of any lags.

Inow has. He has several times, dismissing possible lags. He didn't say I was wrong about the period of lag, but that there is no lag, on at least two topics.

No, I have not. I have asked you now three times, two other times today, to stop asserting this unless you can back it up with a quote.

You have not, and I will go so far as to say that you cannot, since I have NOT, in fact, engaged you on the topic of lags.

Now, stop lying about what I've actually said, and claiming that I've said things when I have not. If you want to quote me where I've done what you say I've done to prove me wrong, then now would be the time. Otherwise, I will ask you now for the third time to stop stating I've made arguments which I have not made.

Originally Posted by cobra

I mean you did not address the difference in water density. It is obvious you thought that sea water is most dense at 4 C like pure water is.

Not quite - my error was otherwise: I assumed there was such a temp, for sea water as for fresh, varying by salinity and pressure, just before it froze. As you correct me, sea water of normal salinity never reaches that temperature - it freezes out first. Mea culpa.

But that does not affect my objection to your averaging: you cannot ignore the nonlinear response of ocean water density to temperature, and calculate "averages" as you did, without misleading yourself.

Given midlevel salinity (say around 35,000 ppm)The surface water of the middle latitudes, say around 17C, expands twice as much as 7C seawater when warmed. It expands four times as much as seawater around 1C - 90% of the ocean's volume, and the surface water at high latitudes. Exactly what volume of water are you presuming to have warmed?

Originally Posted by cobra

I'm pointing out that the exact volume being warmed, its status, makes a very large difference in the resultant expansion. So your calculation there, as usual, is almost without relevance to the physical scene you are attempting to discuss.

Why do you assume I don't already know this?

If you knew it wasn't relevant, why did you post it?

Originally Posted by iceaura

Given midlevel salinity (say around 35,000 ppm)The surface water of the middle latitudes, say around 17C, expands twice as much as 7C seawater when warmed. It expands four times as much as seawater around 1C

Yes, Why must you explain what I already explained? I was using an arbitrary value for showing the effects of thermal change. Isn't that acceptable?

Originally Posted by iceaura

- 90% of the ocean's volume, and the surface water at high latitudes.

Huh? What do you mean. That does not compute. Do you mean that 90% is about 1 C? You would be wrong. Abouy 2/3rds remain rather cold, but 90% of the ocean isn't that cold.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Exactly what volume of water are you presuming to have warmed?

The whole ocean. Like I earlier explained here, and in past posts, I was showing what effect small amounts of temperature had.

Originally Posted by cobra

Yes, Why must you explain what I already explained? I was using an arbitrary value for showing the effects of thermal change. Isn't that acceptable?

Not for concluding that the IPCC estimate for thermal expansion is inaccurate.

Originally Posted by cobra

Do you mean that 90% is about 1 C? You would be wrong. Abouy 2/3rds remain rather cold, but 90% of the ocean isn't that cold.

The thumb number I run into is that 90% of the volume of the midlatitude ocean is below the thermocline - which means it's below 4C. The polar oceans are of course mostly below 4C throughout. For 90% or so of the ocean volume, then, the range is from -2C to about 4C. If you don't like 1, which I agree is lowball, then 2C or 3C might be "average" numbers for the ocean overall.

Originally Posted by cobra

The whole ocean. Like I earlier explained here, and in past posts, I was showing what effect small amounts of temperature had.

Your calculation then, besides being irrelevant (the whole ocean is not warming significantly any time soon), overestimated the volume change by a factor of 2 at least. Unless you were lucky, and the much larger volume changes in the small volumes of warmer surface water closely compensated for the much smaller changes in the colder and more pressurized water.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Do you mean that 90% is about 1 C? You would be wrong. Abouy 2/3rds remain rather cold, but 90% of the ocean isn't that cold.

The thumb number I run into is that 90% of the volume of the midlatitude ocean is below the thermocline - which means it's below 4C.

Well, if that is the case, then I am wrong. I am under the impression that only less than half the volume is deep enough to be 4C or less. I understand the thermocline to be the area that drops rapidly in temperature to 12 C. Not 4C, and that the temperatuire drops slowly after that to 4 C and lower. I thought the 4 C point was 2000 to 4000 meters. Of course, I agree with the polar regions.

If I am wrong, then so be it.

Source?

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Do you mean that 90% is about 1 C? You would be wrong. Abouy 2/3rds remain rather cold, but 90% of the ocean isn't that cold.

The thumb number I run into is that 90% of the volume of the midlatitude ocean is below the thermocline - which means it's below 4C.

Well, if that is the case, then I am wrong. I am under the impression that only less than half the volume is deep enough to be 4C or less. I understand the thermocline to be the area that drops rapidly in temperature to 12 C. Not 4C, and that the temperatuire drops slowly after that to 4 C and lower. I thought the 4 C point was 2000 to 4000 meters. Of course, I agree with the polar regions.

If I am wrong, then so be it.

Source?

We have about a hundred subsea hydrocarbon wells in the Gulf at depths between 2000 and 7500 feet of water. Each one of these have 6 to 8 temperature probes since hydrates (frozen water and methane structures) are a real problem below 7C. We must pack off the flow lines with glycol or methanol (antifreeze) when the wells are shut in for more than 4 hours or so. Surface temperature varies between 22 and 27 C but we hit 4C just below 3000 ft. if my memory serves. I can check it to be certain later this week if requested. From there it declines very slowly as static pressure builds. Temperature is about 2C at 7000 ft. I would be very surprised to learn there is much change in temperatures below 5000 ft in response to surface temperatures or currents. My team monitors these temperatures to prevent plugging by predicting temperature trends of the flow line based on flow rates in the pipes. Several of our wells require continuous methanol injection.

This is the only information I have and I don't know how this compares to published reports.

Originally Posted by cypress

We have about a hundred subsea hydrocarbon wells in the Gulf at depths between 2000 and 7500 feet of water. Each one of these have 6 to 8 temperature probes since hydrates (frozen water and methane structures) are a real problem below 7C. We must pack off the flow lines with glycol or methanol (antifreeze) when the wells are shut in for more than 4 hours or so. Surface temperature varies between 22 and 27 C but we hit 4C just below 3000 ft. if my memory serves. I can check it to be certain later this week if requested. From there it declines very slowly as static pressure builds. Temperature is about 2C at 7000 ft. I would be very surprised to learn there is much change in temperatures below 5000 ft in response to surface temperatures or currents. My team monitors these temperatures to prevent plugging by predicting temperature trends of the flow line based on flow rates in the pipes. Several of our wells require continuous methanol injection.

This is the only information I have and I don't know how this compares to published reports.

I was hoping Ice would check his incorrect facts, and then see how he would respond. Notice I didn't really concede to his so called facts.

Originally Posted by cobra

I am under the impression that only less than half the volume is deep enough to be 4C or less. I understand the thermocline to be the area that drops rapidly in temperature to 12 C.

A moment's thought, and a glance at a globe, would tell you that most of the ocean much of the time does not reach 12C as a surface temperature. A quick Google throws up an average midlatitude surface temp of 17C - Your thermocline is dropping only 5C, and according to you taking something like half a mile to do it.

Anyway, this is typical of what keeps turning up for me, as I check stuff - am I the only one in these discussions that checks stuff?
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

the majority of our ocean water has a temperature between 0-3 degrees Celsius (32-37.5 degrees Fahrenheit).

And it has a typical temperature profile for the very warmest parts of the ocean - the low and midlatitude ocean.

Well Ice, differnt sources, different data.

I don't do well with simple tutorials like that by unnamed authors on activist organization sites.

What matters anyway is where the Bathyal zone starts at, which varies. The thermocline is the temperature varying zone, whereas the Bathyal is where the temperate is 4 C. It is confusing to get a definate fix. there is no typical depth.

Originally Posted by cobra

Well Ice, differnt sources, different data.

All mine say about the same thing. I don't see yours.

Originally Posted by iceaura

Originally Posted by cobra

Well Ice, differnt sources, different data.

All mine say about the same thing. I don't see yours.

Well, most the descriptions I came up with after looking seem to confirm that 90% is around 5 C or lower. I will concede to a lower average than the 7 C. I would not however call any given graph as typical. The ocean varies as much or more as the surface climates it seems.

I'll now be curious to try to find temperature changes by volume and temperature. Maybe less than what I considered is by thermal expansion.