The Scott Pruitt "If the models are all wrong" thread

[Fedor]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

[8manpick]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

[EMAWican]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) (5) * 1.09 ~ 272 ft

[8manpick]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) (5) * 1.09 ~ 272 ft

Good call!

[Emo EMAW]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

So, Fedor actually did the math on this...

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Oceanic Rise: 18 inches, 0.4572 m
(3) Oceanic Volume Increase = (1)*(2) = 1.65e5 km^3
(4) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(5) Necessary thickness of Greenland sized glacier = (3) / (4) = 75.986 m = 249.3 ft

Holy significant digit mess right in mine eyes!

[Rage Against the McKee]

80% of Greenland is covered by ice ranging in thickness between 6600-9800 ft.

[8manpick]

80% of Greenland is covered by ice ranging in thickness between 6600-9800 ft.

If all of that melted....

(1) Oceanic Surface Area: 3.6e8 km^2
(2) Greenland Land Area = 2,166,086 km^2
(3) Greenland Ice Area = 80% * (2) = 1,732,869 km^2
(4) Greenland Ice Thickness Average = 2.5 km
(5) Greenland Ice Volume = (3)*(4) = 4,331,063 km^3
(6) Volume ratio of ice to water 1.09:1
(7) Water Volume of Greenland ice (5) / 1.09 = 3,973,452 km^3
(8) Rise of Ocean = (7) / (1) = 36 feet

This would be a huge problem!

[star seed 7]

Meh, kc is at like 1k ft

[mocat]

see you down in arizona bay

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

For a glacier to do that it would have to be the size of Greenland and ~250' thick.

The fact that warmists like edna would simply accept such a ludicrous claim at face value pretty much tells you all you need to know.

[ednksu]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2015/11/12/greenland-glacier-melting-global-warming-climate-change/75661092/

A massive glacier in northeast Greenland has dramatically melted in the past decade and would raise global sea levels by a foot and a half if it thawed completely, according to a study published Thursday.

The glacier is near a large one also melting rapidly but at a slower rate. The two chunks of ice make up 12% of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches if they both totally collapsed, a process that would likely take centuries.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=4771

The reason? Zachariae Isstrom is big. It drains ice from an area of 35,440 square miles (91,780 square kilometers). That's about 5 percent of the Greenland Ice Sheet. All by itself, it holds enough water to raise global sea level by more than 18 inches (46 centimeters) if it were to melt completely. And now it's on a crash diet, losing 5 billion tons of mass every year. All that ice is crumbling into the North Atlantic Ocean.

Adjacent to Zachariae Isstrom is another large glacier, Nioghalvfjerdsfjorden, which is also melting rapidly but is receding at a slower rate because it's protected by an inland hill. The two glaciers make up 12 percent of the Greenland ice sheet and would boost global sea levels by more than 39 inches (99 centimeters) if they fully collapsed.




Once again, facts > KSUW

[Emo EMAW]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?

lots of data released today, so happening now-ish.

So now, or in centuries. 

[ednksu]

Greenland has a glacier breaking apart that will raise sea levels by 18" once it melts.  Awesome work guys.  No problems here.

When is that going to happen?

lots of data released today, so happening now-ish.

So now, or in centuries. 

Never said this was an overnight process.



 Is anyone reading anything anymore?

[sonofdaxjones]

Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

[ednksu]

Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.

[sonofdaxjones]

Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.

We are have been at or near record (recorded) minimal sun activity, per studies by  AGU scientists that will likely have a far greater impact on Greenland's glaciers then so called "global warming"  (if it's warming, why so many scientists writing screeds about how the last 18 years is just a "pause" in global warming and that will soon reverse?  But I digress) will likely ever have.

But keep posting your MSM alarmism, I really enjoy it.

Oh and periods of High Solar Activity actually warm tropical currents which in turn work as a block between warm and cold waters, which keeps colder waters trapped more towards the Arctic and Greenland, during Solar minimums, tropical currents aren't as warm the "wall" between the cold and the warm water weakens actually along seepage of warmer currents into the area around Greenland. 

[ednksu]

Even defrocked Climate Scientist Michael Mann admitted earlier this year they still don't fully understand the impact of ocean currents on Greenland Glacier melt and multiple scientists including Mann believe that Solar activity (you know the Sun) has had substantial impact on Greenland's Glacier i.e. periods of high solar activity actually cause slowing or net growth of Greenland's Glaciers and periods of Solar minimums (like we're experiencing now) actually accelerate Greenland Glacier melt.   

This is climate alarmism at it's best (or worst) when they still don't fully understand the various cycles.

Not sure many would debate with you on the cycles of the sun having an impact.  what we know is that the 11 year cycle does cause variations, but even with that in place, we are seeing changes occurring outside of that 11 year system.  yes it's complex, but more and more of the evidence everyday says human activity is altering the affect of those cycles.

We are have been at or near record (recorded) minimal sun activity, per studies by  AGU scientists that will likely have a far greater impact on Greenland's glaciers then so called "global warming"  (if it's warming, why so many scientists writing screeds about how the last 18 years is just a "pause" in global warming and that will soon reverse?  But I digress) will likely ever have.

But keep posting your MSM alarmism, I really enjoy it.

The fact that you see NASA as MSM alarmism is a problem.  Come up with a study by a legitimate organization with transparent funding to refute or shut it.  These peer reviewed studies are valid until proven otherwise.  Putting your head in the sand doesn't invalidate their finding because you don't want them to be true.

[sonofdaxjones]

http://news.agu.org/press-release/suns-activity-controls-greenland-temperatures/

[ednksu]

http://news.agu.org/press-release/suns-activity-controls-greenland-temperatures/

Northern Hemisphere experienced rising temperatures as a result of greenhouse warming.

“We need to really consider how solar activity will change in the future,” said Kobashi. “If solar activity becomes really low, as scientists expect, the Greenland ice sheet will melt faster than we expected from the climate model with just greenhouse gas [warming].”


“I’m open-minded that the real answer is more complicated, and it may be a combination of the two hypotheses,” said Mann. “This article paves the way for a more in-depth look at what is going on. The challenge now will be teasing apart the two effects and trying to assess the relative importance of both of them.”

Kobashi contends that solar activity explains the change in ocean circulation and Greenland warming since 1995, which he says cannot be explained by increasing greenhouse gases alone.


Everyone agrees that we don't understand the mechanisms at play in warming and cooling cycles.  Your own study agrees thought that humans are changing the way the cycles work and are having an impact on temperatures.

[sonofdaxjones]

It's not my study, and the article actually references two different studies.

If you can get noted Warmist Alarmist Michael Mann to admit that they really don't understand the situation entirely and that he's "open" (this coming from a guy who was part of a junta that collaborated to silence dissenting opinions, findings and studies) to other ideas/concepts/findings then that tells me, and should tell anyone all they need to know, that is, the science is far from settled and will never likely be "settled". 

[ednksu]

It's not my study, and the article actually references two different studies.

If you can get noted Warmist Alarmist Michael Mann to admit that they really don't understand the situation entirely and that he's "open" (this coming from a guy who was part of a junta that collaborated to silence dissenting opinions, findings and studies) to other ideas/concepts/findings then that tells me, and should tell anyone all they need to know, that is, the science is far from settled and will never likely be "settled".

Dax I've only read a little bit about him, but what you're saying seems to be a gross misrepresentation of his position.  Of course a good scientist won't claim to know everything or that this theory has no room for further adjustment or negotiation.  The fact is Mann is suing people who are attacking his theories on human caused warming.  Him being "open" to other ideas is the result of the scientific process, not doubt in warming occurring. Very few say the science is "settled" in the kind of concrete program you are suggesting, only that it is all signs point to human involvement altering what is occurring in a complex system.

[sonofdaxjones]

Think about what you said, the guy is so unsure about his work that he's suing other people that are saying he's incorrect, I believe he's also being sued.  He's repeatedly stood behind academic administrative guardians, repeatedly thwarted FOIA requests on his publicly funded work and was part of a cabal of scientists who sought to stonewall, discredit, and dare I say "freeze out" any scientific descent through various methodologies like "peer review wars" and the like.   They were also caught red handed manipulating their own data to get desired outcomes and then when they tried to claim they were hacked or that people just misunderstood climate nerd jovialities and some of the stuff they said on emails shouldn't be taken literally . . .  forensic data specialists concluded they were exposed from the inside and likely by someone who was tired of the charade.

[ednksu]

Think about what you said, the guy is so unsure about his work that he's suing other people that are saying he's incorrect, I believe he's also being sued.  He's repeatedly stood behind academic administrative guardians, repeatedly thwarted FOIA requests on his publicly funded work and was part of a cabal of scientists who sought to stonewall, discredit, and dare I say "freeze out" any scientific descent through various methodologies like "peer review wars" and the like.   They were also caught red handed manipulating their own data to get desired outcomes and then when they tried to claim they were hacked or that people just misunderstood climate nerd jovialities and some of the stuff they said on emails shouldn't be taken literally . . .  forensic data specialists concluded they were exposed from the inside and likely by someone who was tired of the charade.

I accept your post (well written criticism).  Can you post a link to the points about him attacking other scientists (not publications) or the forensic data point you've made.

[sonofdaxjones]

http://realclimatescience.com/2015/11/record-crushing-fraud-from-noaa-and-nasa-ahead-of-paris/

By tampering with the station baseline, they created the large anomalies. Then they double down their fraud by smearing their bogus anomalies across 1200 km of missing data. This is needed to create their required fraudulent record temperature claims ahead of Paris.

[star seed 7]

What a great website