Talk-Polywell.org

'Fraid this is old news, because I read old 'New Scientists' [free discards from others!], but I thought it might 'tickle' a few folks here...

01st Nov 2008, p.7: “Extra-salty sea: Increasing saltiness in parts of the Atlantic Ocean is down to us. Salinity is known to have risen in areas of the Atlantic in recent decades. Now a team lead by Peter Scott at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Change has used climate models to show that anthropogenic warming is to blame, through increased evaporation and a decrease in rainfall.”

errr..... can anyone spot my confusion over this?!?...

chrismb wrote:'Fraid this is old news, because I read old 'New Scientists' [free discards from others!], but I thought it might 'tickle' a few folks here...

01st Nov 2008, p.7: “Extra-salty sea: Increasing saltiness in parts of the Atlantic Ocean is down to us. Salinity is known to have risen in areas of the Atlantic in recent decades. Now a team lead by Peter Scott at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Change has used climate models to show that anthropogenic warming is to blame, through increased evaporation and a decrease in rainfall.”

errr..... can anyone spot my confusion over this?!?...

What goes up...

... must come down.

But not necessarily in the same place.

Ah!.. well, sure, if they meant [and said] 'locally' then that might've helped! (I'm not entirely sure they did mean that, though, seems to be one of those GW foot-in-mouth things.)

So is somewhere else getting real fresh water, or could the atmosphere just hold on to all that extra humidity?

(So what if some random bit of the Atlantic is getting more salty, if it means somewhere else is getting improving water quality?)

chrismb wrote:So is somewhere else getting real fresh water, or could the atmosphere just hold on to all that extra humidity?

(So what if some random bit of the Atlantic is getting more salty, if it means somewhere else is getting improving water quality?)

Without cloud nucleation by cosmic rays, humidity might get close to 100%. It should be possible to calculate what volume of water that would represent...

Could that be what triggers the onset of an ice age?

anthropogenic warming is to blame, through increased evaporation and a decrease in rainfall.”

So it's simultaneously causing the seas to rise and to fall.

This begs the obvious question: could AGW microwave a burrito so hot that AGW itself could not eat it?

They may have to rename the phenomenon OGW: Omnipotent Global Warming.

Of course, given recent events (ahem, Briffa, Yamal, bristlecones!) we have to leave open the possibility someone accidentally sampled their chicken soup after a salt shaker fell into it.

chrismb wrote:'Fraid this is old news, because I read old 'New Scientists' [free discards from others!], but I thought it might 'tickle' a few folks here...

01st Nov 2008, p.7: “Extra-salty sea: Increasing saltiness in parts of the Atlantic Ocean is down to us. Salinity is known to have risen in areas of the Atlantic in recent decades. Now a team lead by Peter Scott at the UK's Hadley Centre for Climate Change has used climate models to show that anthropogenic warming is to blame, through increased evaporation and a decrease in rainfall.”

errr..... can anyone spot my confusion over this?!?...

The Caspian Sea basin, landlocked, is rising in sea level. Antarctica and Greenland are increasing in total ice mass, despite what the chicken little AGW warmists are trying to say about arctic ice. FWIW, arctic sea ice is increasing over a few years ago. Also, more than 20% of the lower 48 states of the US are covered in snow already this year the earliest we've reached that point since the 19th century.

This past week saw over 4500 new record low daily maximum temperatures across the US.

Another interesting contributor: notice that atlantic hurricanes are traversing latin america and going out over the pacific, and then making landfall again on the pacific side of the continental divide. This is resulting in a lot of atlantic moisture winding up in the pacific.

Additionally, there has been a steady increase in rainfall over the Sahara, resulting in a cooling and greening of many regions of the desert, an expansion in grazing and farming, and an opportunity to return the Sahara to the lush green savannah that it was 12,000 years ago.

http://www.medindia.net/news/Climate-Ch ... 5735-1.htm

Given the Copenhagen agreement is intended to force countries to pay reparations from those who benefit from use of fossil fuels to those who do not, it is now clear that sahara desert countries should pay the US reparations for our improvement of their climate.

I blogged something similar. Note the date:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/200 ... auses.html

Two papers: one says GW causes an increase in salinity. The other says decrease. In the same area.

Question: How is AGW like God?

Answer: It is the first cause for everything.

Evidently it is also the cause of corruption in science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/17/i ... side-down/

IntLibber wrote:Antarctica and Greenland are increasing in total ice mass

This is much too glib. The total ice mass of East Antarctica is probably growing, whereas that of West Antarctica is probably shrinking. The figure for Greenland is uncertain, but possibly shrinking.

Recent Antarctic and Greenland ice-mass fluxes from satellite observations and their significance

One recent report suggests that what is causing the ice-melt in the arctic is soot, not AGW. And much of the soot is derived from the diesel engines used in the ships that are now making use of the ice free paths thru the arctic. Positive feedback of the negative sort!

We're basically mayflies on this globe, testing everything that can be tested, quantifying everything that can be quantified, theorizing about how it all interrelates without really knowing what's more important than what, (though we've got good guesses at a number of things) and then trying to figure out what direction to guide our economy in to avoid a disaster which may or may not occur whether we do anything or not.

(Shrug.)

Way I look at it, humans are adaptable critters. We exist in every biome from the Arctic Circle to the equator. We'll adapt if the world cools two degrees, we'll adapt if it warms two degrees. I'm for efficient use of our resources, with an eye to minimizing their impact, not minimal use of our resources with an eye to environmental hysteria.

JLawson wrote: I'm for efficient use of our resources, with an eye to minimizing their impact, not minimal use of our resources with an eye to environmental hysteria.

This is neither here nor there but "hear, hear".

alexjrgreen wrote:

IntLibber wrote:Antarctica and Greenland are increasing in total ice mass

This is much too glib. The total ice mass of East Antarctica is probably growing, whereas that of West Antarctica is probably shrinking. The figure for Greenland is uncertain, but possibly shrinking.

Recent Antarctic and Greenland ice-mass fluxes from satellite observations and their significance

EA is much much larger than WA. The overall ice mass is growing. Has been for decades.

A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020 ... eaice.html

That's why sea level rise is flat. Has been for a century

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/18/g ... lattening/

TallDave wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote:

IntLibber wrote:Antarctica and Greenland are increasing in total ice mass

This is much too glib. The total ice mass of East Antarctica is probably growing, whereas that of West Antarctica is probably shrinking. The figure for Greenland is uncertain, but possibly shrinking.

Recent Antarctic and Greenland ice-mass fluxes from satellite observations and their significance

EA is much much larger than WA. The overall ice mass is growing. Has been for decades.

A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020 ... eaice.html

You're cherry picking. Figure 1 in the link I gave [Bamber 2009] summarises the recent data.

Estimates for East Antarctica vary from a yearly gain of 100 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of almost 50 Gigatonnes.

Estimates for West Antarctica vary from a yearly loss of 30 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of 280 Gigatonnes.

alexjrgreen wrote:

TallDave wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote: This is much too glib. The total ice mass of East Antarctica is probably growing, whereas that of West Antarctica is probably shrinking. The figure for Greenland is uncertain, but possibly shrinking.

Recent Antarctic and Greenland ice-mass fluxes from satellite observations and their significance

EA is much much larger than WA. The overall ice mass is growing. Has been for decades.

A 2002 analysis of NASA satellite data from 1979-1999 showed that areas of Antarctica where ice was increasing outnumbered areas of decreasing ice roughly 2:1.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/20020 ... eaice.html

You're cherry picking. Figure 1 in the link I gave [Bamber 2009] summarises the recent data.

Estimates for East Antarctica vary from a yearly gain of 100 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of almost 50 Gigatonnes.

Estimates for West Antarctica vary from a yearly loss of 30 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of 280 Gigatonnes.

Shouldn't the ocean rise put a bound on the numbers?

MSimon wrote:

alexjrgreen wrote:Estimates for East Antarctica vary from a yearly gain of 100 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of almost 50 Gigatonnes.

Estimates for West Antarctica vary from a yearly loss of 30 Gigatonnes to a yearly loss of 280 Gigatonnes.

Shouldn't the ocean rise put a bound on the numbers?

Sea level rise is currently dominated by thermal expansion. Glacial meltwater volumes have been small by comparison.