Uh Oh: Computer Models Predict Maybe Doom From Antarctic Melting

Many media outlets are having meltdowns (sic) over a report. Let’s go to hyper-Warmist Justin Gillis at the NY Times for the hysteria

Climate Model Predicts West Antarctic Ice Sheet Could Melt Rapidly

Everything you need to know is in the headline. Garbage in garbage out computer models, which have continuously failed.

For half a century, climate scientists have seen the West Antarctic ice sheet, a remnant of the last ice age, as a sword of Damocles hanging over human civilization.

The great ice sheet, larger than Mexico, is thought to be potentially vulnerable to disintegration from a relatively small amount of global warming, and capable of raising the sea level by 12 feet or more should it break up. But researchers long assumed the worst effects would take hundreds — if not thousands — of years to occur.

Now, new research suggests the disaster scenario could play out much sooner.

Continued high emissions of heat-trapping gases could launch a disintegration of the ice sheet within decades, according to a study published Wednesday, heaving enough water into the ocean to raise the sea level as much as three feet by the end of this century.

Oh, but don’t think the doom of sea rise ends there, because their computer models predict things will get even worse

The situation would grow far worse beyond 2100, the researchers found, with the rise of the sea exceeding a pace of a foot per decade by the middle of the 22nd century. Scientists had documented such rates of increase in the geologic past, when far larger ice sheets were collapsing, but most of them had long assumed it would be impossible to reach rates so extreme with the smaller ice sheets of today.

And they’re able to prognosticate this using the same failed computer models that have failed to predict anything else. If you had a calculator that kept giving you the wrong answers, would you continue to listen to its answers? But, hey, good news, this is a maybe might could possibly we’re not sure prediction

“We are not saying this is definitely going to happen,” said David Pollard, a researcher at Pennsylvania State University and a co-author of the new paper. “But I think we are pointing out that there’s a danger, and it should receive a lot more attention.”

In other words, doomsaying to obtain more taxpayer funding for more studies.

Of course, nothing in the paper seems to take into account the scientific research, not computer models, mind you, into the volcanic activity occurring under Western Antarctica. They simply blame it on Mankind’s release of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, “The answer the scientists got is described in their paper in the dry language of science, but it could easily serve as the plot device of a Hollywood disaster movie.” Nowhere in the NY Times article, nor others I’ve perused on the paper, even mention volcanic activity.

Oh, BTW, here’s how the article ends

But the recent climate deal negotiated in Paris would not reduce emissions nearly enough to achieve that goal. That deal is to be formally signed by world leaders in a ceremony in New York next month, in a United Nations building that stands directly by the rising water.

Huh. So the “historic”, as it has been deemed, climate deal really does nothing.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

14 Responses to “Uh Oh: Computer Models Predict Maybe Doom From Antarctic Melting”

  1. Jeffery says:

    computer models, which have continuously failed.

    Teach, are you a Christian? If so, isn’t lying frowned upon in Christian circles? Or is there a special exemption for conservative lying?

  2. alanstorm says:

    Um, Jeffy-boy, that’s an example of truth, not lying. The sacred computer models that the climatistas are so fond have have failed to predict reality. According To Al G (who relied on his sponsoe’s models), the polar ice caps are gone.

    The real reason for the “climate” navel-gazing is pretty much what sane people have been thinking all along: http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-admits-real-motive-behind-warming-scare/

  3. jlcurran says:

    I love how climate science contradicts real science. Ice occupies more volume than water and much/most of the ice is below the water surface. Melting ice will actually lower the water elevation.

    Water forms it’s own level. In order for the water elevation to raise 12 feet, you would need approximately 1.3 million cubic km of ice sitting above the water surface (not connected to any ice below the surface). The Polar Science Center estimates the total volume of arctic ice at 5,000 – 6,000 cubic km.

    Not to mention heat rises and CO2 is lighter than water and rises to the surface. All this crap about heat and CO2 trapped in the deep parts of the ocean is complete BS.

  4. Jeffery says:

    Um, alice, no, it’s lying. Although Deniers Deny it, the climate models predicted the rise in mean global surface temperature with increasing atmospheric CO2 much as Svante Arrhenius predicted a century or so ago. Deniers accuse the models of failure for not predicting volcanic eruptions and El Ninos.

    Surely, alice, you’re not going to Deny that the Earth is warming or that CO2 is rising. Maybe, alice, you Deny that the increased CO2 is from human activity. Perhaps, alice, you Deny that CO2 can cause the atmosphere and the Earth to retain heat.

    Teach blames the melting Antarctic ice sheet on volcanoes and links to right-wing bluster sites.

    In any event, alice, the Earth is warming as predicted by the models. The polar sea ice is melting, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are meeting, sea levels are increasing etc etc and so forth. We don’t need models to tell us about melting ice, all we need are measurements. Which we have.

  5. Jeffery says:

    jlcurran typed:

    2016-03-31 09:50:36

    I love how climate science contradicts real science. Ice occupies more volume than water and much/most of the ice is below the water surface. Melting ice will actually lower the water elevation. Here’s a little, real science, experiment you can do. Take a measuring cup with 1/2 cup of water. Go to the freezer and take out 5 ice cubes and place it in the cup with the 1/2 cup of water. Wait until all the ice has melted and then measure the level. Is it 1/2 cup still or has the water level risen or did it drop as you predict? Ice melt from land masses, such as Greenland and Antarctica (like ice cubes from the freezer) cause sea levels to rise. Melting sea ice (around Antarctica and the north pole), like ice already in the cup, does not. In addition water expands when warmed. Real scientists are way ahead of you. Please don’t litter the landscape with Denier ignorance.

    Water forms it’s own level. In order for the water elevation to raise 12 feet, you would need approximately 1.3 million cubic km of ice sitting above the water surface (not connected to any ice below the surface). The Polar Science Center estimates the total volume of arctic ice at 5,000 – 6,000 cubic km. Of course, as explained above, this is irrelevant to sea level. You are either ignorant or a liar. What are the volumes of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets? How much does water expand with 1C warming?

    Not to mention heat rises and CO2 is lighter than water and rises to the surface. All this crap about heat and CO2 trapped in the deep parts of the ocean is complete BS. CO2 dissolves in water and forms carbonic acid which rapidly dissociates into a hydrogen ion and bicarbonate. CO2 + H20 -> H2CO3 -> H+ + HCO3-. The hydrogen ion liberated from water by the CO2 is why the pH of the ocean is decreasing (becoming more acidic). Obviously the concentration of CO2 is higher closer to the sea surface than at depth, not because CO2 is “lighter than water”, but because the source (the atmosphere!) is closer to the surface. All that is irrelevant to ocean warming anyway! CO2 dissolved in seawater is not causing the oceans to warm, CO2 in the atmosphere IS! It’s not magic and it’s not even that complicated.

    These days, our world is rife with pseudoscience and folk-science (as evidenced above – Melting ice cubes don’t raise water level! CO2 is lighter than water!). A strong understanding of the physical laws of our universe and the scientific method will help one avoid the pitfalls. I know, I know… science Deniers consider global warming to be a hoax promulgated by pseudoscience. That’s not true, of course, but your worldview requires that that scientists be dishonest and charlatans.

    It’s not to say that Deni-o-blog commenters won’t find the Achilles heel of climate science, but let’s just say it’s very, very improbable.

    A little learning is a dangerous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring. — Alexander Pope

  6. jlcurran says:

    This is why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Do your little ice cube experiment and let me know how it works out for you. Try this one too: fill a glass to the top with water and put it in the freezer. After it freezes completely, let me know if the level went up or down or if the volume expanded or contracted. I’ll wait for your reply.

    When water is cooled below 4 degrees Celsius, it stops contracting and starts expanding. Water does expand as it’s heated above 4 degrees Celsius. The expansion is exponential and there is very little change from 4 degrees to 20 degrees Celsius. (Most expansion occurs as the the water is heated from 40 degrees C to 100 degrees C and it changes into gas.) If some of the ice melts, the water temperature (adjacent to the ice) will be closer to 0 degrees than 20 or 40 degrees and the volume of water will still be less. Your catastrophic events could occur, only if the ice caps are melted and then warmed to temperatures at or above those at the equator.

    To answer the question, water contracts from 0 to 4 (Celsius). Depending upon the temperature, the amount of expansion varies.

    Atmospheric CO2 is can dissolve into water and this occurs naturally where the water surface is in contact with the air. However, atmospheric CO2 would need to be under heavier pressures (than atmospheric pressure) to be forced into the oceans. Dissolved CO2 is released from the oceans naturally. Approximately 98% more CO2 is released from the oceans than absorbed.

    Carbonic acid is not CO2, much like H2O behaves differently than H or O individually. In darkness, when no photosynthesis occurs, respiration processes release carbon dioxide, and no new bicarbonate ions are produced, resulting in a rapid fall in pH.

  7. Jeffery says:

    Do you have a point, besides dumbassery? LOL

    Does ice on land, when it melts and runs into the oceans, raise sea level?

    Is there enough ice on land (mostly Greenland and Antarctica) that, if melted, to raise sea levels? (Bonus question: Back when sea levels were much higher than now… where did all that extra water come from? Or was the land just a lot lower?)

    You admit that CO2 can dissolve in water from an air:water interface, but in the next sentence claim it can’t happen. Which is it?

    You make the true statement that CO2 is not carbonic acid, although no one claimed it was. Why does the pH of degassed, ultrapure H20 = 7.0? Why does the pH drop on standing in open air?

    You claim the oceans emit 98% more CO2 than they absorb. From where does all this CO2 released naturally from the oceans originate? Also, I think you are confusing dissolved CO2 with forcing CO2 into liquid under pressure, e.g., in Coca-Cola.

  8. Jeffery says:

    j,

    Uh oh, you may not have realized this but Climate Depot is run by Marc Morano, former employee of Jim Inhofe, Rush Limbaugh and an original Swift Boater.

    He has no aptitude for science, nor any training as a climate scientist, or even as a grammar school science teacher. Why would you link to that blog as if he discussed science?

    Perhaps you can look up “astrologer” in your Webster’s Dictionary. If you’re short this month I can send you a copy.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Like JoNOVa, jlcurran runs away from facts.

  10. jlcurran says:

    I wish I had the life of a liberal troll, Jeffery. What are the facts of climate science? So far you have a theory that has been proven false by 18+ years of increased CO2 and no increase in global temperature (The Pause). Your science is adept at creating computer models (based upon your theory) that predict doom and gloom ad nothing predicted has come true.

    Facts? Let’s look at the facts.

    1. You think that water contracts when it freezes. It’s a fact that water expands as it freezes. As it cools from 4 degrees Celsius to 0, it expands. Do that little experiment and see what happens. From 0 to 40 degrees Celsius, there is very little change in density. Most water expansion occurs as water gets glose to a boil and is converted to gas.

    2. To explain the Pause, climate science has stated that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans…you know the really deep parts with no sunlight. Since the premise is CO2 needs to be irradiated from the sunlight to heat up (water reflects sunlight and heat rises at or below surface level atmospheric conditions), this is impossible.

    3. You explained how absorbed CO2 turns into carbonic acid which is making the oceans acidic. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1. As I mentioned in darkness when no photosynthesis occurs, the respiration processes release carbon dioxide, and no new bicarbonate ions are produced, resulting in a rapid fall in pH. It’s a cycle that naturally occurs. Since there is much more water in darkness, the oceans remain basic, not acidic.

    4. Since only a certain amount of CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans due to atmospheric pressure (higher pressures would be needed to force more CO2 into the oceans), the amount of CO2 being absorbed is relatively constant and the oceans will remain basic.

    5. You mentioned a time when sea levels were much higher. When did this occur? I assume we’re talking about millions of years ago. How did man cause this? What? This was naturally occurring? And the earth survived. How about that.

    What you have, friend, is a theory. A religion funded by the government in order to raise taxes. The goal of climate science is global wealth distribution. Fear gives you power. Before the Americas were “discovered”, the European powers perpetuated the myth that the world was flat and there were sea monsters. That was their science.

    Instead of creating computer models that are designed to support your theories, do some real science. Consider that the both the earth and the sun are constantly changing. Nothing is static. Prove that the earth’s core and the sun have nothing to do with the earth’s surface temperature (they have remained a constant) and CO2 is the only changing variable. If this is the case, you’re theory is already disproven due to The Pause.

  11. Jeffery says:

    Nothing predicted has come true? LOL. The Earth is warming as predicted.

    1. You think that water contracts when it freezes. It’s a fact that water expands as it freezes. As it cools from 4 degrees Celsius to 0, it expands. Do that little experiment and see what happens. From 0 to 40 degrees Celsius, there is very little change in density. Most water expansion occurs as water gets glose to a boil and is converted to gas. Irrelevant to the discussion, nothing that I said, and a total distraction. Just more Denialism. You said that ice added to water doesn’t increase the total volume which is just silly.

    2. To explain the Pause, climate science has stated that the missing heat is hiding in the oceans…you know the really deep parts with no sunlight. Since the premise is CO2 needs to be irradiated from the sunlight to heat up (water reflects sunlight and heat rises at or below surface level atmospheric conditions), this is impossible. Not even close and ignorance of basic facts. The Earth continues to warm. There is no “premise” that CO2 needs to be irradiated by sunlight. In fact, it’s been known for at least a century that sunlight DOESN’T interact much with CO2. The infrared wavelengths (heat) re-emitted from the Earth DOES interact.

    3. You explained how absorbed CO2 turns into carbonic acid which is making the oceans acidic. Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1. As I mentioned in darkness when no photosynthesis occurs, the respiration processes release carbon dioxide, and no new bicarbonate ions are produced, resulting in a rapid fall in pH. It’s a cycle that naturally occurs. Since there is much more water in darkness, the oceans remain basic, not acidic. 8.1 is less than 8.2, therefore more acidic. How much acid is necessary to lower the overall pH of trillions of gallons of sea water 0.1 pH units? Your hypothesis is that the drop in overall ocean pH is because of changes in overall photosynthesis?

    4. Since only a certain amount of CO2 can be absorbed by the oceans due to atmospheric pressure (higher pressures would be needed to force more CO2 into the oceans), the amount of CO2 being absorbed is relatively constant and the oceans will remain basic. That’s incorrect.

    5. You mentioned a time when sea levels were much higher. When did this occur? I assume we’re talking about millions of years ago. How did man cause this? What? This was naturally occurring? And the earth survived. How about that. Again. Irrelevant. Just another Denier talking point. The Earth’s climate responds to the physicochemical forces applied. The Earth has been colder and warmer before, caused by orbital changes, vulcanism, asteroid impacts… now the warming is being caused by humans dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. What IS relevant is that you claimed earlier that there wasn’t enough ice to cause the sea level to rise. My question to you was where did all the water come from when the seas were higher? You and I both know that it came from the ice sheets. If the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets were to melt completely, sea levels would rise significantly.

    I am not your friend. I do not befriend people willfully ignorant and dishonest as you. The theory of global warming is supported by overwhelming evidence. CO2 is causing the Earth to warm. The Deniers have no evidence, nada, zip… to falsify the theory. You have no feasible alternative explanations. The Sun? No. The core? Any evidence? No.

  12. drowningpuppies says:

    The theory of global warming is supported by overwhelming evidence. CO2 is causing the Earth to warm.

    -the little guy who exaggerates often and has no direct scientific evidence or data to support that assumption and has no friends

  13. Hank_M says:

    Jeff wrote: Any evidence? No.

    Puleeeze. Whenever anyone offers any evidence you refuse to accept it. And then you claim no evidence exists.
    You’ve been sufficiently exposed on this topic, and others, many times and yet as a child, you shut your eyes, block your ears and claim you haven’t heard or seen anything.

    If your purpose in posting here is to convince others, you’re failing.
    If your purpose in posting is to look like the fool, then congratulations are in order.

Bad Behavior has blocked 7719 access attempts in the last 7 days.