On 7/2/2012 6:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

That's pure water. What about the salinity in seawater, which, IIRC,
adds significant mass without increasing volume?

Also, does not the pressures of depth increase density, which would
surely have a measurable impact on the average density?

Not arguing, just asking ... there's simply been too much water (both
fresh and sea) under my bridge in the last 45 years.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

Which is not really shocking to anyone who has had burst frozen pipes.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.

Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 = 3.62E14m^2
Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters
Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg = 5.4E21 g
Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56 deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx
3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.

It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5
deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg
F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg
C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or
about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as the
ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450 or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Your temperature rise is very large, so with a lower rise in temperature,
the rise in sea level won't be as great. But, keep in mind that this is
only the effect of warming of the whole ocean. I don't (yet) know what
the expansion will be on average, because I don't know how fast a) the
oceans will heat up, and b) how fast the oceans mix. However, we need to
add the effects of glacier and icecap melts, and we have no idea really
how the rate of melting is going to change. Overall (and there are vast
variations), that rate seems likely to increase, rather than decrease.

Of course, a couple of dozen Mt Pinatubo sized volcanic eruptions will
likely cool things down for at least a few years, let alone Krakatao-
sized ones ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 6:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5
deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg
F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg
C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or
about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

That's pure water. What about the salinity in seawater, which, IIRC,
adds significant mass without increasing volume?

Also, does not the pressures of depth increase density, which would
surely have a measurable impact on the average density?

Not arguing, just asking ... there's simply been too much water (both
fresh and sea) under my bridge in the last 45 years.

I think the salinity of the water affects density (and freezing and
boiling points), but not necessarily the change in density with changing
temperature.

Water is fairly uncompressable, in contrast of course to water vapor. I
won't argue the last point with a sailor ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Dave wrote in news:04c1v7p05eacj329fc3af82m3r2b4n6gkk@
4ax.com:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, wrote:
I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
nighttime temperatures?

This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.

The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on the climate than the
sun has.

On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew


I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.


Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.

On 7/2/2012 5:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.
Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

From that date, io if the ocean was 36%F, and it rose to 38%F, the
water level would actually fall due to contraction, rather than rise due
to expansion.. Not that the facts will change the minds of those who
worship at the alter of AlGore.

Han writes:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5
deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg
F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg
C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or
about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as the
ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450 or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Your temperature rise is very large, so with a lower rise in temperature,
the rise in sea level won't be as great. But, keep in mind that this is
only the effect of warming of the whole ocean. I don't (yet) know what
the expansion will be on average, because I don't know how fast a) the
oceans will heat up, and b) how fast the oceans mix. However, we need to
add the effects of glacier and icecap melts, and we have no idea really
how the rate of melting is going to change. Overall (and there are vast
variations), that rate seems likely to increase, rather than decrease.

Of course, a couple of dozen Mt Pinatubo sized volcanic eruptions will
likely cool things down for at least a few years, let alone Krakatao-
sized ones ...

There are a number of factors that need to be considered when
thinking about the average sea level:

1) Isostatic rebound; some land surfaces in the Northern Hemisphere are still
rebounding (rising) from the last ice age. All things equal, this
results in relative lowering of sea level in such areas.

2) Subsidence due to loading (e.g. large river system deltas), all
things equal, this results in a relative rise of sea level in such
areas. Subsidence due to groundwater depletion also has local effects.

3) Thermal expansion due to heat content of the ocean. You've calculated
this above. Note that the thermal content of the ocean changes
relatively slowly as the thermohaline circulation moves water between
colder and warmer regions. The thermohaline circulation has a period
of about 1600 years (for water to make a complete cycle). The thermal
input is via thermal diffusion between the air and the water, so the
rate is governed by the difference in water and air temperatures. This
also implies that more than the top 50 feet of the ocean matters, since
the warm water sinks at the poles, moves equator-ward and upwells causing
warming at all levels to some extent.

4) Melting of land-bound ice (note that as floating ice (e.g. the Arctic)
melts, sea level is not affected) such as Greenland, the Antarctic
plateau (but not the floating sea-ice) and continental glaciers.
I'll note here that southern hemisphere ice extent hasn't changed
much at all since 1979 (if anything, it has increased), while the
northern hemisphere icecap has thinned and shrunk over the same
time period (there is no satellite data prior to 1979). There hasn't
yet been much change to Greenland (in fact, recent research has
significantly lower estimates of greenland ice loss).

5) Groundwater drawdown (since most of it ends up flowing to the ocean
via runoff or precipitation). Note that this has been calculated to
be a significant portion of the sea level rise to date, with different
studies showing different levels based on different assumptions as to
the amount of geologic water that has been withdrawn.

6) Currents caused by prevailing winds tend to cause surges in certain
areas; tidal effects thus vary (some areas have larger differences
between low and high tides than others). If the prevailing winds
change due to thermal radiation/circulation changes, then there will
be changes in the tidal response in various areas.

scott

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm the
upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 = 3.62E14m^2
Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately 5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters
Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg = 5.4E21 g
Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56 deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx
3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it all
went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of it
eventually radiates into space.

Swingman wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 6:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few
degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up.
Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up that up
is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the
physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees
C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10
deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming
from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of
(1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per
cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics]

That's pure water. What about the salinity in seawater, which,
IIRC, adds significant mass without increasing volume?

The salinity adds a little bit of mass -- about three percent. The
ratios between densities at different temperatures are not
affected much by the salt.

Also, does not the pressures of depth increase density, which
would surely have a measurable impact on the average density?

No. Water is not compressible to any significant extent. Density
increases with depth only to about 1km, due *entirely* to
decreasing temperature. Below 1000m, the density of water is
essentially uniform.

Not arguing, just asking ... there's simply been too much water
(both fresh and sea) under my bridge in the last 45 years.

Understood.

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F)
its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

Which is not really shocking to anyone who has had burst frozen pipes.

I'm talking about *liquid* water at 0 C.

*Solid* water at 0 C is of course much less dense than liquid water at 0 C.

It is such a pleasure to see the ng subscribers having a serious on-topic
discussion about a subject that some of us are actually knowledgeable about,
like 'lektricity, rather than subjects like global warming, the economics
of fuel prices, or affordable health care...


--
There is always an easy solution to every human problem -- neat,
plausible, and wrong." (H L Mencken)

Larry Wasserman - Baltimore Maryland - lwasserm(a)sdf. lonestar. org

Han wrote in :

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5
deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg
F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg
C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or
about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as the
ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Average depth thus about 4000 meters.

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450

Hold it right there. You're assuming that the entire volume of water on the planet will
increase in temperature, and hence volume, by the same amount.

That ain't gonna happen.

Only a very small portion of it near the surface is going to warm up at all. The depths will
remain quite cold.


or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Again, assuming that it *all* warms up. Which won't happen.

I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.
================================================== ============

I should have snipped the first sentence in the statement I was responding
to.

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:15 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few
degrees, it will expand, and thus the level will go up.
Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up that up
is.
Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the
physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees
C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10
deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming
from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of
(1.00000 / 0.99973) = 1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per
cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and
Physics]

From that date, io if the ocean was 36%F, and it rose to 38%F,
the
water level would actually fall due to contraction, rather than
rise due to expansion..

That is correct.

Not that the facts will change the minds of those who
worship at the alter of AlGore.

:-)

In article , tiredofspam
says...

On 7/1/2012 1:12 PM, HeyBub wrote:
tiredofspam wrote:
Not according to the A holes who say it's not happening.
But those of us with brains recognize that the past few years the
swings have been out of whack. Records everywhere. Record high temps
in the winters, record snow falls, record low temps.

The Deleware river has had 3 100 year floods in just a couple of
years.

Those people who say its not global warming are the same people that
say tobacco doesn't cause cancer. And fracking is harmless. And so
on.. Like our congress critters who say SS will be there for us.
The head up their ass guys and gals.


Tobacco causes cancer? Science has YET to define the mechanism. All that the
health folks can say is that there is a very, very strong correlation. But
science also holds that correlation is not causation.*
Really... you are a total misguided idiot.

Nope. If tobacco was the cause then everybody who smoked would get
cancer. It's not a cause, it's a predisposing factor. George Burns was
seldom seen without a cigar and lived to be over a hundred. If "smoking
causes cancer" he would certainly have gotten cancer. There are many
other examples of people who smoke heavily and live to ripe old ages and
never get cancer.

Fracking is harmless? Again, geologists and others have not yet
shown
whether fracking is or is not harmless.

So the fact that people can light their water coming out of the tap on
fire is nothing. No fact. You stick your head in the ground... far in
the ground..

Prove that it was caused by fracking. Pennsylvania had high methane
levels in the water long before fracking. Heck, prove that the various
videos that are being shown are even tap water. For all you know there
could be a gasoline tank on the other side of the wall.

On 7/2/2012 6:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Dave wrote in news:04c1v7p05eacj329fc3af82m3r2b4n6gkk@
4ax.com:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, wrote:
I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
nighttime temperatures?
This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.
The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on the climate than the
sun has.


Global warming theorists (NOT me) claim that carbon dioxide acts as an
energy trap that lowers the amount of solar energy that re-radiates back
into space, that it's this increased retention of solar energy that is
killing all the polar bears.
Personally, I think that even if the globe was warming ( and I don't
think it is, at least not significantly, and if it is, it's not caused
by man), on a global scale it would probably be a good thing. More
energy inevitably would result in increased plant growth, which would
feed more animals as well. On a global scale it would be worth it to
push beachfront property farther inland in return for a global
environment that's more hospitable to life in general.

Just Wondering wrote in news:4ff29df3$0$10576$882e7ee2
@usenet-news.net:


Global warming theorists (NOT me) claim that carbon dioxide acts as an
energy trap that lowers the amount of solar energy that re-radiates back
into space, that it's this increased retention of solar energy that is
killing all the polar bears.

Yeah, about that -- polar bear population is actually *increasing*, not decreasing.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...unt-confounds-
doomsayers/article2392523/

Personally, I think that even if the globe was warming ( and I don't
think it is, at least not significantly, and if it is, it's not caused
by man), on a global scale it would probably be a good thing. More
energy inevitably would result in increased plant growth, which would
feed more animals as well. On a global scale it would be worth it to
push beachfront property farther inland in return for a global
environment that's more hospitable to life in general.

Talk to any geologist, and he'll tell you that during much of its existence, the planet has
been much warmer than it is now. Too many people make the mistake of thinking that the
conditions we experience now are necessarily both normal and optimal, without any
evidence for either belief.

On 7/2/2012 2:20 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make much
more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A couple of
more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

Apparently the estimates of sea level rises solely due to expansion of the
oceans as they warm up is between 11 and 43 cm, or ~4" to 1 1/2 ft. That's
just the warming.



And as you stated, estimates, not proof. And my comments suggest that
natural wave and tide action overwhelm the "estimate" of the expansion
from heat of even 2'. Yes the 2' would be on top of all of that however
tide and wave action are often much greater than all of that combined
with out much of a notice my most.

On 7/2/2012 2:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
doing that.

80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very difficult,
even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far, and the masses of
cold water underneath the surface water (at 80 degrees), would overwhelm it
and cool it significantly at 150 feet.



Yes 150 feet!

http://suite101.com/article/how-do-h...s-form-a132343

On 7/2/2012 7:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Dave wrote in news:04c1v7p05eacj329fc3af82m3r2b4n6gkk@
4ax.com:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, wrote:
I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
nighttime temperatures?

This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.

The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on the climate than the
sun has.




Careful there Doug, you are using common sense and that is not so common
any more.

On 7/3/2012 2:23 AM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/2/2012 6:44 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Dave wrote in
news:04c1v7p05eacj329fc3af82m3r2b4n6gkk@
4ax.com:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 13:05:30 -0400, wrote:
I can't disprove global warming, but we're currently on the high side
of a sunspot cycle which fits with 100 degrees in the afternoon and 75
degrees at night. Wouldn't true global warming also increase the
nighttime temperatures?
This is ridiculous. It's a factual impossibility that man has not had
a noticeable affect on the weather of this planet. ALL that you
naysayers have to offer in rebuttal is half baked theories as to why
it probably is something else.
The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human
beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on
the climate than the
sun has.


Global warming theorists (NOT me) claim that carbon dioxide acts as an
energy trap that lowers the amount of solar energy that re-radiates back
into space, that it's this increased retention of solar energy that is
killing all the polar bears.
Personally, I think that even if the globe was warming ( and I don't
think it is, at least not significantly, and if it is, it's not caused
by man), on a global scale it would probably be a good thing. More
energy inevitably would result in increased plant growth, which would
feed more animals as well. On a global scale it would be worth it to
push beachfront property farther inland in return for a global
environment that's more hospitable to life in general.


Yes no one has proven that warming is a bad thing. But we have had
abundant proof that the suggestion of global warming is a gold mine of
opportunity to sell the next save the world idea.

Let us sell you "something" so that your share of the foot print,
(.0000000000000000000000000000000001%), will decrease by the same
amount. Much to do about nothing.

On 7/2/2012 7:48 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
On 7/2/2012 4:02 PM, CW wrote:
"Jim Weisgram" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2012 19:18:00 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:

Take your choice, wild fires in the west or oppressive heat waves thru
out much of the rest of the country, global warming is upon us.

Shall we continue to ignore the effect of green house gases?

Lew


I don't have an argument against greenhouse gases affecting global
climate. But I believe the wildfires are as much to do with poor
forest management (suppressing files for 100 years has built up a huge
backlog of combustible material) than the warmer climate.
================================================== ===========

Agreed.


Utah's got a dozen fire going, most of them fueled by grasses and other
small plants that grew in abundance during last year when precipitation
was high and temperatures mild, that turned into tinderboxes this year
when precipitation was low and temperatures high. Some of them were
ignited by lightning, others by human stupidity. I'm just saying that's
not the result of forest mismanagement. All of which has nothing to do
with nonexistent man-made climate change.


Looooooooooooooooooooong before there was any type of forest management
there was "no forest management". There have always been wild fires.

On 7/2/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@ 4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature
monitoring stations in one of the coldest parts of the world, because
the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?

I'd hope that they use a correction factor for that of some kind.
OTOH, when my parents moved their last time, in 1947, the street was
dirt, as were many of the adjoining streets, however small their number
was. Since, the streets have all been blacktopped, and widened. Moreover
the surface area of paved roads in Holland has probably been increased
10-20 fold if not more. Somewhere there ought to be statistics on that.
When you pave dirt with blacktop, build housing (read roofs), you
probably increase the heat retention of those surface several fold. That
same process has occurred throughout the world. Nowadays every family
has 2 cars, where they used to have a few bicycles. Almost everyone now
has A/C, which doesn't use up heat, but produces it. Reminder: In 1976
almost no subway cars in New York City had A/C. Now they all do - ergo
lots of net heat production. All that without invoking green house
gases. Add those to the mix, and it is no wonder that things on average
over the whole world are getting warmer. Yes, Earth's climate has in the
geological past gotten warmer and colder, even in historical scales. But
please, PLEASE, do understand that we are affecting things ON TOP OF
NORMAL CLIMATE changes.

Look at the earth from the moon. Can you see any of the direct physical
structures or constructions "changes by man". Noooo.

Can you see the land and sea? yes

Can you now see how insignificant we are to the whole picture?










As far as sea level changes are concerned, perhaps you don't care now
that sea levels are increasing. Rest assured that much planning and
preparing is going on in Holland, where half the country would be
inundated if all the current sea-defenses were inoperable. Ask London
City government whether they like another 1953.

On 7/2/2012 5:00 PM, CW wrote:
"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
...
On 7/1/2012 9:24 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@
4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the
consequent shutdown of a large number of temperature monitoring stations
in one of the
coldest parts of the world, because the Russians could no longer afford
to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?



And none of the doomsdayers seem to factor in the that Antarctica is
growing by leaps and bounds.
================================================== ==============================
Think it's bad now? Wait until they figure out that it is caused by our
orbit. There will be people saying that we need to build rockets to push the
earth back into a comfortable orbit.



The government can't take on that task in the foreseeable future. Even
the elected cannot fathom adding 3 more zero's to the word trillion.

Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 2:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
doing that.

80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very
difficult, even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far,
and the masses of cold water underneath the surface water (at 80
degrees), would overwhelm it and cool it significantly at 150 feet.



Yes 150 feet!

http://suite101.com/article/how-do-h...s-form-a132343

I believe that means the water has to be at least 150 deep - not that the
temperature is 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet.

--

-Mike-

On 7/3/2012 7:22 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:
On 7/2/2012 2:25 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
Leon wrote:


Now the sun certainly warms the waters considerably and has to warm
the water to at least 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet to even form
and sustain a hurricane. Nothing man is doing will come close to
doing that.

80 degrees, but not to a depth of 150 feet. That would be very
difficult, even for the sun. It does not penetrate water that far,
and the masses of cold water underneath the surface water (at 80
degrees), would overwhelm it and cool it significantly at 150 feet.



Yes 150 feet!

http://suite101.com/article/how-do-h...s-form-a132343

I believe that means the water has to be at least 150 deep - not that the
temperature is 80 degrees to a depth of 150 feet.


Nope temperature that is 80 degrees 150 feet. Living in hurricane alley
this is hammered into our heads every summer.


Think convection currents mixing the surface water with the deeper
water. A hurricane has to have the 80 degree water temperatures to
exist. There is an enormous amount of water vapor and heat that is
lifted from the surface. If the 80 degree temperatures were not 150
feet deep the water would soon cool and the hurricane would be no more.

This also probably explains why the bigger and more frequent hurricanes
typically happen in September after the long how summers have had time
to heat the oceans to those 150 foot depths.

On Tue, 03 Jul 2012 06:48:34 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
The earth receives more energy from the sun in *one hour* than human beings consume in
an *entire year*. That's about five orders of magnitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
And yet some people continue to insist that man has more influence on the climate than the
sun has.

Careful there Doug, you are using common sense and that is not so common
any more.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the pollution produced by man
and his use of fossil fuels.

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@ 4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the consequent shutdown of a large number of
temperature monitoring stations in one of the coldest parts of the
world, because the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?

I'd hope that they use a correction factor for that of some kind.
OTOH, when my parents moved their last time, in 1947, the street was
dirt, as were many of the adjoining streets, however small their
number was. Since, the streets have all been blacktopped, and
widened. Moreover the surface area of paved roads in Holland has
probably been increased 10-20 fold if not more. Somewhere there
ought to be statistics on that. When you pave dirt with blacktop,
build housing (read roofs), you probably increase the heat retention
of those surface several fold. That same process has occurred
throughout the world. Nowadays every family has 2 cars, where they
used to have a few bicycles. Almost everyone now has A/C, which
doesn't use up heat, but produces it. Reminder: In 1976 almost no
subway cars in New York City had A/C. Now they all do - ergo lots of
net heat production. All that without invoking green house gases.
Add those to the mix, and it is no wonder that things on average over
the whole world are getting warmer. Yes, Earth's climate has in the
geological past gotten warmer and colder, even in historical scales.
But please, PLEASE, do understand that we are affecting things ON TOP
OF NORMAL CLIMATE changes.

Look at the earth from the moon. Can you see any of the direct
physical structures or constructions "changes by man". Noooo.

Can you see the land and sea? yes

Can you now see how insignificant we are to the whole picture?

I bet you could see the reduction in ice.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 2:20 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make
much more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A
couple of more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

Apparently the estimates of sea level rises solely due to expansion
of the oceans as they warm up is between 11 and 43 cm, or ~4" to 1
1/2 ft. That's just the warming.



And as you stated, estimates, not proof. And my comments suggest that
natural wave and tide action overwhelm the "estimate" of the expansion
from heat of even 2'. Yes the 2' would be on top of all of that
however tide and wave action are often much greater than all of that
combined with out much of a notice my most.

Sorry, Leon, in the Bay of Fundy the tides are enormous. They dwarf a
few feet of sea level rise. But when the sea level has risen 2 or 3
feet, anything that is now at water's edge during high tide, will be 2 or
3 feet under.

Look at it this way. Normally door openings are 80" and all but freakily
tall basketball players go through without thinking. People come in all
sizes, from 5'1" to 6'6" or so. That's a difference of 17" in "tides".
So lowering the door 3" would make little difference in view of thaat
17"variation, right? Try making doors 6'5" high.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of
it eventually radiates into space.

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

(Scott Lurndal) wrote in
:

Han writes:
Doug Miller wrote in
0:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At
5 deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50
deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to
10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as the
ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450 or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Your temperature rise is very large, so with a lower rise in
temperature, the rise in sea level won't be as great. But, keep in
mind that this is only the effect of warming of the whole ocean. I
don't (yet) know what the expansion will be on average, because I
don't know how fast a) the oceans will heat up, and b) how fast the
oceans mix. However, we need to add the effects of glacier and icecap
melts, and we have no idea really how the rate of melting is going to
change. Overall (and there are vast variations), that rate seems
likely to increase, rather than decrease.

Of course, a couple of dozen Mt Pinatubo sized volcanic eruptions will
likely cool things down for at least a few years, let alone Krakatao-
sized ones ...

There are a number of factors that need to be considered when
thinking about the average sea level:

1) Isostatic rebound; some land surfaces in the Northern Hemisphere
are still
rebounding (rising) from the last ice age. All things equal,
this results in relative lowering of sea level in such areas.

2) Subsidence due to loading (e.g. large river system deltas), all
things equal, this results in a relative rise of sea level in
such areas. Subsidence due to groundwater depletion also has
local effects.

3) Thermal expansion due to heat content of the ocean. You've
calculated
this above. Note that the thermal content of the ocean changes
relatively slowly as the thermohaline circulation moves water
between colder and warmer regions. The thermohaline circulation
has a period of about 1600 years (for water to make a complete
cycle). The thermal input is via thermal diffusion between the
air and the water, so the rate is governed by the difference in
water and air temperatures. This also implies that more than the
top 50 feet of the ocean matters, since the warm water sinks at
the poles, moves equator-ward and upwells causing warming at all
levels to some extent.

4) Melting of land-bound ice (note that as floating ice (e.g. the
Arctic)
melts, sea level is not affected) such as Greenland, the
Antarctic plateau (but not the floating sea-ice) and continental
glaciers. I'll note here that southern hemisphere ice extent
hasn't changed much at all since 1979 (if anything, it has
increased), while the northern hemisphere icecap has thinned and
shrunk over the same time period (there is no satellite data
prior to 1979). There hasn't yet been much change to Greenland
(in fact, recent research has significantly lower estimates of
greenland ice loss).

5) Groundwater drawdown (since most of it ends up flowing to the
ocean
via runoff or precipitation). Note that this has been calculated
to be a significant portion of the sea level rise to date, with
different studies showing different levels based on different
assumptions as to the amount of geologic water that has been
withdrawn.

6) Currents caused by prevailing winds tend to cause surges in
certain
areas; tidal effects thus vary (some areas have larger
differences between low and high tides than others). If the
prevailing winds change due to thermal radiation/circulation
changes, then there will be changes in the tidal response in
various areas.

scott

Indeed. Note that perhaps total area of southern ice has not changed
that much, except for floating ice. But there are indications that at
least a number of antarctic glaciers have speeded up tremendously,
suggesting the transfer of volumes (not area) of ice into the ocean.
Implied is that this ice will melt and the water will raise the ocean
levels, eventually.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in
:

Doug Miller wrote in
:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in
Fahrenheit). If all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it
will expand, and thus the level will go up. Somebody ought to have
the calculated data how much up that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical
sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At
5 deg C (41 deg F) its density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50
deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW, warming from 4 deg C to
10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

[Source for the above data is the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics]

My Handbook is upstairs. One of the very few books I took when I
retired. It is really old, though still the larger format.

OK, let's do the calculations.

First let's assume that the ocean basins don't change in volume as
the ocean warms up.

From http://ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/global/etopo1_ocean_volumes.html
total volume: 1,335,000,000 km^3
Total surface area 361,900,000 km^2

Average depth thus about 4000 meters.

Using your expansion factor as a very large approximation:
Total volume becomes 1,335,000,000 * 1.00027 = 1,335,360,450

Hold it right there. You're assuming that the entire volume of water
on the planet will increase in temperature, and hence volume, by the
same amount.

That ain't gonna happen.

Only a very small portion of it near the surface is going to warm up
at all. The depths will remain quite cold.


or
360,450 km^3 more, which is divided over an area of 361,900,000 km^2.
That is a height of 0.000995993368 km, i.e. 99.59 cm or over 3 feet.

Again, assuming that it *all* warms up. Which won't happen.

Not right away, but eventually it will. Someone said in 1600 years, but
that assumes ocean circualtions remain constant. There are already
variations (up and down) in El Niño currents with enormous short duration
effects. The real doomsayers are afraid of what might happen if the
Arctic Ocean really becomes icefree and the Atlantic circulation might
get disrupted.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 7/3/2012 9:18 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@ 4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the consequent shutdown of a large number of
temperature monitoring stations in one of the coldest parts of the
world, because the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?

I'd hope that they use a correction factor for that of some kind.
OTOH, when my parents moved their last time, in 1947, the street was
dirt, as were many of the adjoining streets, however small their
number was. Since, the streets have all been blacktopped, and
widened. Moreover the surface area of paved roads in Holland has
probably been increased 10-20 fold if not more. Somewhere there
ought to be statistics on that. When you pave dirt with blacktop,
build housing (read roofs), you probably increase the heat retention
of those surface several fold. That same process has occurred
throughout the world. Nowadays every family has 2 cars, where they
used to have a few bicycles. Almost everyone now has A/C, which
doesn't use up heat, but produces it. Reminder: In 1976 almost no
subway cars in New York City had A/C. Now they all do - ergo lots of
net heat production. All that without invoking green house gases.
Add those to the mix, and it is no wonder that things on average over
the whole world are getting warmer. Yes, Earth's climate has in the
geological past gotten warmer and colder, even in historical scales.
But please, PLEASE, do understand that we are affecting things ON TOP
OF NORMAL CLIMATE changes.

Look at the earth from the moon. Can you see any of the direct
physical structures or constructions "changes by man". Noooo.

Can you see the land and sea? yes

Can you now see how insignificant we are to the whole picture?

I bet you could see the reduction in ice.



I bet you can see that Antarctica and grown significantly more that the
loss of ice of all other areas combined.

On 7/3/2012 9:25 AM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 2:20 PM, Han wrote:
Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
news
I am not buying the water expanding hunch at all. The tides make
much more of a difference and wave action would add to that. A
couple of more inches from temperature expansion would be unnoticed.

Apparently the estimates of sea level rises solely due to expansion
of the oceans as they warm up is between 11 and 43 cm, or ~4" to 1
1/2 ft. That's just the warming.



And as you stated, estimates, not proof. And my comments suggest that
natural wave and tide action overwhelm the "estimate" of the expansion
from heat of even 2'. Yes the 2' would be on top of all of that
however tide and wave action are often much greater than all of that
combined with out much of a notice my most.

Sorry, Leon, in the Bay of Fundy the tides are enormous. They dwarf a
few feet of sea level rise. But when the sea level has risen 2 or 3
feet, anything that is now at water's edge during high tide, will be 2 or
3 feet under.

Look at it this way. Normally door openings are 80" and all but freakily
tall basketball players go through without thinking. People come in all
sizes, from 5'1" to 6'6" or so. That's a difference of 17" in "tides".
So lowering the door 3" would make little difference in view of thaat
17"variation, right? Try making doors 6'5" high.


Door openings are fixed sea levels on a daily basis are not. Still has
there been a measurement where the average level of the sea is now 3"
deeper? I don't think so. Since water is self leveling this should be
happening all around the world. If is is not actually happening every
where, it ain't happening at all.

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 5:38 PM, Doug Miller wrote:
Just Wondering wrote in
news:4ff1d13e$0$26191$882e7ee2 @usenet-news.net:

Start with a calculation of how much energy it would take to warm
the upper 50 feet of ocean by 1 degree F.
Easily enough done.

Water surface area of the Earth: 362,000,000 km^2 = 3.62E8 km^2 =
3.62E14m^2 Thus the top 15 meters has a volume of approximately
5.43E15 m^3 = 5.43E18 liters Its mass is approximately 5.4E18 kg =
5.4E21 g Energy required to raise the temperature by 1 deg F = 0.56
deg C = 5.4E21 * 0.56 = approx 3E21 cal = 1.3E22 joules

Roughly 13,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules (13 sextillion).

I would be very surprised if all
the energy released by human activity in the last 50 years, if it
all went directly into heating the oceans, would be enough to
accomplish that.
It's close.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption

But very little of that energy goes into heating the oceans. Most of
it eventually radiates into space.

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


And yet no one can prove the degree of this assumption or if it is just
that, an assumption. No ill effects, no problem.

On 03 Jul 2012 14:18:10 GMT, Han wrote:

Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in
:

On 7/2/2012 6:54 AM, Han wrote:
Doug Miller wrote in
:

Mike O. wrote in
news:kvr1v71pamehnqrq62pnpir4b14kelm9rn@ 4ax.com:


Globally, the 20 warmest years have all occurred since 1987.

Oddly enough, they've all occurred since the collapse of the Soviet
Union -- and the consequent shutdown of a large number of
temperature monitoring stations in one of the coldest parts of the
world, because the Russians could no longer afford to maintain them.

Ya think that might skew the average a bit higher?

I'd hope that they use a correction factor for that of some kind.
OTOH, when my parents moved their last time, in 1947, the street was
dirt, as were many of the adjoining streets, however small their
number was. Since, the streets have all been blacktopped, and
widened. Moreover the surface area of paved roads in Holland has
probably been increased 10-20 fold if not more. Somewhere there
ought to be statistics on that. When you pave dirt with blacktop,
build housing (read roofs), you probably increase the heat retention
of those surface several fold. That same process has occurred
throughout the world. Nowadays every family has 2 cars, where they
used to have a few bicycles. Almost everyone now has A/C, which
doesn't use up heat, but produces it. Reminder: In 1976 almost no
subway cars in New York City had A/C. Now they all do - ergo lots of
net heat production. All that without invoking green house gases.
Add those to the mix, and it is no wonder that things on average over
the whole world are getting warmer. Yes, Earth's climate has in the
geological past gotten warmer and colder, even in historical scales.
But please, PLEASE, do understand that we are affecting things ON TOP
OF NORMAL CLIMATE changes.

Look at the earth from the moon. Can you see any of the direct
physical structures or constructions "changes by man". Noooo.

Can you see the land and sea? yes

Can you now see how insignificant we are to the whole picture?

I bet you could see the reduction in ice.

There is no reduction in ice. There is a reapportioning of ice. When
it leaves one place, it finds another home. When one area warms,
another cools to even things out. It's what Mother Nature does.

--
Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight
very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands.
It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.
-- John Wayne

On 7/3/2012 9:27 AM, Han wrote:

The fact that we are doing things to prevent that radiating into space is
^^^^
what makes global warming a fact and a problem.


What is indeed a "fact" is that neither beliefs, nor model predictions,
qualify as scientific "fact" ...

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 01:07:24 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 23:15:07 +0000 (UTC), Doug Miller
wrote:

Han wrote in news:XnsA0847BD6DC6C5ikkezelf@
207.246.207.124:

One of the scary reasons to pay attention to ocean warming is
that much is really cold (like in the 30's and low 40's in Fahrenheit). If
all that ocean water warms just a few degrees, it will expand, and thus the
level will go up. Somebody ought to have the calculated data how much up
that up is.

Not scary at all to anyone who's had an education in the physical sciences.

Water has its maximum density of 1.00000 g/ml at 3.98 degrees C. At 5 deg C (41 deg F)
its
density is 0.99999 g/ml, and at 10 deg C (50 deg F) the density is 0.99973 g/ml -- IOW,
warming from 4 deg C to 10 deg C, water will expand by a factor of (1.00000 / 0.99973) =
1.00027, or about one-fortieth of one per cent.

Water is actually more dense at 5 deg C than at 0.

Which is not really shocking to anyone who has had burst frozen pipes.

I'm talking about *liquid* water at 0 C.

*Solid* water at 0 C is of course much less dense than liquid water at 0 C.

And solid water at -1C is less dense than 0C. The direction is the same, with
the maximum at ~4C.