Thread: The 'money' boys believe AGW

I’m far, far from home but I’m going to try hard to respond politely to this thread. (Also, if my wife twigs I’m still going on the forum, I’m dead!!!)

I’m turning over a new leaf and trying not to insult.

Firstly. G hall
- it was my impression over the sea level rise from Greenland ice-sheet melting debate long ago that you were displaying extraordinary ‘arrogance’ over the about 7m rise calculated by many other people. I felt that your attitude to them was derisory and you felt that this calculation was flawed. I remember that you then did your own superior calculation but assumed it was 7 Kilometres rise – out by a factor of 1000

Here’s a suggestion, sincerely meant kindly – I will try very hard not to be insulting any more here and furthermore, I hope to go to Norwich / Gt Yarmouth later in the Year so if you are in that region, which I’ve assumed you are, may we could meet and have a drink and laugh all this past rubbish off.

Secondly, Exorcist:-
The calculation of approximate sea level rise is very simple, - ultimately about 10 seconds probably.

Logic:-
Working on your ‘box’ principle, one can assume the existing ocean volume can be represented by a ‘box’.
current ocean volume, V1 = ocean area x current H1,

Assuming the ocean area doesn’t change (see later for discussion), new volume after melted ice V2 = ocean area x new height H2, thus:-
H2=V2/area, and H1=V1/area, so ......... therefore H2-H1 = V2/area – V1/area
which re-arranges to, H2-H1 = (V2-V1)/area
But V2-V1 is simply the melted ice volume, so the calculation reduces simply to
Melted ice volume / ocean area.

Now, in sense you are correct to put in say, a 0.92 correction because the volume of ice is greater than water (below 4 deg),, but you should also consider the resulting water will warm to say a average of what 15 deg C and will expand.

Also, a lot of the Greenland ice is incredibly compressed at the bottom by the weight of it above so it is not ‘normal’ volume ice.

Even the IPCC do not consider expansion of ocean area in their calculations but also they do not consider isostatic rebound of the Greenland land mass. What I’m suggesting therefore is that there are competing volume/area changing factors which may cancel each other out to some extent.

The volume of the Greenland ice cap was measured, I am fairly certain, several years ago to most scientists satisfaction by differential radar scanning.

Finally, using these figures from wiki,
Current ocean area = 361 X10 km2
Volume of ice = 2.85 million KM3, Okay, put your 0.92 correction then = 2622000 km3
So, increase in height = 2,622,000/361,132,000 which = 0.00726 km = 7.26 metres

If I’ve made a mistake in logic or calculation, I’m sorry – it’s not the highest thing on my mind at the moment but if this IS okay, please try the second or third challenges.

I may not respond for sometime.

IPCC now suggest 18 inches sea level rise and that is probably an over estimate

Firstly, Clippo, school report - showing much improvement. Keep up the good work

Can someone explain something? Temperatures rise, ice melts, etc etc. Wouldn't evapotranspiration also increase, and by that token, precipitation? How much of this will be trapped in groundwater recharge of aquifers? Would it be insignificant?

Groundwater makes up about twenty percent of the world's fresh water supply, which is about 0.61% of the entire world's water, including oceans and permanent ice. Global groundwater storage is roughly equal to the total amount of freshwater stored in the snow and ice pack, including the north and south poles.

Give up Clippo, go back to your wife and enjoy yourselves, it's over.

g hall wrote:-

IPCC now suggest 18 inches sea level rise and that is probably an over estimate

I think we are talking about different things.

'My' about 7m rise if the greenland ice cap melts is not disputed by ANY scientist - how could they with such simple logic and mathematics? As Besoeker said, there is error in a number of those factors contributing to that calculation, but equally they may cancel each other out.

I suspect your statement is more about the RATE of general ice-melting. Certainly, the IPCC give several scenarios for sea level rise by the end of this century and I suspect your estimate is actually a low bisaing or cherry pick by the likes of WUWT of the lower IPCC figure.

Could you give an accurate source for your quoted figure ?

Guvnah,
You may very well be right about the compressibility of ice but my point was that these fine errors cancel each other out. For example, in his earlier post, 'language expert' (ooh, he writes beautifully doesn't he? ) Exorcist used a 0.92 factor for the melting volume of ice to water, presumably at 0 deg C but ignores any water volume increase as it warms to ? what ? 10 deg C world average.Besoeker has already put a convincing calculation od sea area change, which would lessen sea level rise but also nobody has consider isodtatic rebound of the greenland land mass when the ice is gone, or even that of antarctica. When all is said and done, sea level rise from the greenland ice sheet melt is still going to be 'about' 7m.

Clippo

As I seem to recall I had a discussion with you a while back about the carbon trading scheme, and you seemed to think it was going to be a stable exchange system, whereas I on the otherhand said it would be more characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. Here is one man that backs me up on this. Perhaps this answers the proposition of the thread.


Here comes the next bubble – carbon trading – Telegraph Blogs