Climahysteric Hysteria: 4 Foot Sea Rise

Here we go with the year 2100 predictions again, folks

The United States faces the possibility of much more rapid climate change by the end of the century than previous studies have suggested, according to a report led by the U.S. Geological Survey.

The study, which was commissioned by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and issued this month, expands on the 2007 findings of the United Nations Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change. Looking at factors such as rapid sea ice loss in the Arctic and prolonged drought in the Southwest, the new assessment suggests that earlier projections may have underestimated the climatic shifts that could take place by 2100.

They can’t get the 10 day weather report correct, yet, they can tell us what the climate will be 91 years from now? PT Barnum David Hannum would have been thrilled.

In one of the report’s most worrisome findings, the agency estimates that in light of recent ice sheet melting, global sea levels could rise as much as 4 feet by 2100. The intergovernment panel had projected a rise of no more than 1.5 feet by that time, but satellite data over the last two years show the world’s major ice sheets are melting much more rapidly than previously thought. The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are losing an average of 48 cubic miles of ice a year, equivalent to twice the amount of ice in the Alps.

OK, all you Climahysterics try a little experiment. Take a glass. Fill it with water about 1/2 way or so. Take an ice cube, drop it in. Mark the water level. Now, let it melt. When done, where is the mark? The same level? Holy cow!!!!

What the climahysterics are setting up is a way of claiming that the cooling climate has been caused by the warming climate we had.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

8 Responses to “Climahysteric Hysteria: 4 Foot Sea Rise”

  1. Silke says:

    Teach said: OK, all you Climahysterics try a little experiment. Take a glass. Fill it with water about 1/2 way or so. Take an ice cube, drop it in. Mark the water level. Now, let it melt. When done, where is the mark? The same level? Holy cow!!!!

    Your analogy is flawed. The ice sheets melting on Antarctica and Greenland are on land so the proper way to do it would be to mark the level of the water before you drop the ice cube in.

  2. Raven says:

    I’m not a scientist, but I did do an experiment with this.

    I measured three ounces of water. I froze it overnight.

    The next morning, I got a cup of water, 4 ounces, and dropped the 3oz ice cube into it. When it melted, there was just OVER 7oz of water in the cup.

    I’m not sure this was a good way to explain it all.

    We have to remember that much of the melting ice WILL raise the sea levels; BUT, with that, we will see an increase in moisture in the atmosphere. The global/climate freaks claim this will lead to more rain and snow storms and the eventual Day After Tomorrow BS. They fail to take into consideration the fact that a lot of the water will flow into landside rivers and ponds; that a lot of it will flow south and freeze back up into Anarchic bergs; and that a lot of it will simply evaporate- not everything that goes up will come back down.

    Many scientists believe all the extra moisture in the air will actually improve the health of the animal kingdom as well. Dry areas might get relief- and hence the animals that live in these areas. Humans who have breathing problems could be affected as well- high moisture oft means more respiratory problems.

  3. John Ryan says:

    Jesus Teach that “experiment” made you look stupid

  4. manbearpig says:

    Raven obviously isn’t a scientist. The instructions were to drop the ice into the glass and mark the water level. Then once the ice had completely melted, check the water level against the original mark when the ice was dropped in. This is a basic, 5th grade science experiment. the volume of the water will not change as the level accounts for the volume of the ice.

    And apparently JR, just like most climahysterics, looked at the reported “results” without analyzing the method.

  5. Silke says:

    manbearpig said: And apparently JR, just like most climahysterics, looked at the reported “results” without analyzing the method.

    The method is irrelevant if the analogy is wrong. When ice melts on land and flows into the sea it causes a change in the volume. No wonder Teach never wants to talk about the evidence. He doesn’t understand it.

  6. Except that is not really happening either, Silke. The majority of glaciers that are melting (and not that many have been studied) do not flow in to the sea. And those that do still do not add much to sea height. Even you have to admit that 4 feet is idiotic. Especially when the Sun is chilling out, leading to a climate that is getting cooler again.

  7. […] Science education in the US has failed miserably to produce a scientifically literate citizenry. Case in point: William Teach, who burps out his ignorant meanderings at a blog called Pirate’s Cove. Discussing the predicted increase in sea levels worldwide due to the melting of the ice caps, he bellows: […]

  8. ice9 says:

    Great god. This is the state of the science literacy in the republic. Global warming will not harm us–we’ll be dead long before then, dead of stupidity.

    Your “inquiry” is so thoroughly and fundamentally flawed that it’s actually making your readers stupider.

    This is of course due to your preconception, that global warming is not happening; it is impossible to mount intelligent inquiry if your capacity to reason is overpowered by your determination to reach a prearranged conclusion. And you can’t do that because you are completely invested in your conclusion–that human-created warming isn’t taking place.

    How does that differ from any other experiment, you ask? Well, sure, experiments come with hypotheses, but scientists–good ones, that is–are as perfectly happy to disprove the hypothesis as the are to confirm it or qualify it. That’s why it’s not a matter of ‘belief’, why good scientists believe in nothing.

    1. All water goes down, and down is where the sea is. Water that goes into lakes or rivers or ponds or water glasses does not stay there. With a few exceptions, lakes are just wide rivers. If it melts on an ice cap, a glacier, or an ice berg or in your water glass, it goes into the ocean eventually (or evaporates, in which case it is as likely to wind up precipitated on a mountain top as it is to wind up precipitated directly into an ocean.) If ice on the face of the earth melts, sea levels will rise. By the way, this applies to your ice cube in the glass as well, and to the ice cap in the Arctic. You can conduct your ice cube experiment if you like, but do it right: the water in the glass must be salt water, and the ice cube must be fresh water (most ice cap ice accretes as snow). The water in question should all be an appropriate temperature, because water’s characteristics vary sharply with temperature. Conduct that experiment carefully and you will in fact see a slight rise in the level of liquid in the glass, the result of key facts: ice takes up more volume by weight than liquid water, and salt water is less dense than fresh water. (just a guess, but such an accurate experiment is beyond your skills.) The effect of melting ice caps is extremely complex and is likely to be very destructive. That of course is not to mention the fact that the vast majority of ice at risk for new melt is on land.

    Raven–at some point in a shifting climate there will indeed be “improvements”. But it takes a numbskull to view those localized and temporary changes as positives. Ecosystems tend toward equilibrium. If dry zones become wetter, the disruption may or may not benefit humans. A sudden increase in wheat yield due to increased rainfall may be an unexpected positive. But that change would be accompanied by hundreds of negatives, because we are adjusted to the equilibriums as well. So your increased rainfall causes the extinction of many species, damage to other food crops such as cotton or corn, and a sudden change in the character of the environment, and an increase in disease which our culture and genetics aren’t prepared for. West Nile disease, anyone?

    The problem with dumbass denialists is that they have to attack science to make their ideas seem even remotely sensible. But science is perfectly happy with attacks; it’s hard-wired to attack itself. So when you tee off on some “obvious” discrepancy, you’re actually joining a long-running conversation that has a very high bar, clear rules, and lots and lots of smart people participating. Your cleverness works for your audience, but that’s only because they are–wait for it–your audience, self-selected to accept the same style of nattering claptrap that you like to write.

    Draw another glass of water, and start again, genius.


Pirate's Cove