[stevem]

What do they say about sea levels when those ice sheets actually expand?

[Tarpon]

Since there is no longer any scientific basis for man caused global warming, I would refer to this as a wild a$$ guess. My guess is the seas will go down 5 feet.

[BILL_C]

In a few years we’ll be worried about GLOBAL COOLING again.

[ETL]

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD

ABSTRACT:

"Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the product of oceanic respiration due to the well-known but under-appreciated solubility pump. Carbon dioxide rises out of warm ocean waters where it is added to the atmosphere. There it is mixed with residual and accidental CO2, and circulated, to be absorbed into the sink of the cold ocean waters. Next the thermohaline circulation carries the CO2-rich sea water deep into the ocean. A millennium later it appears at the surface in warm waters, saturated by lower pressure and higher temperature, to be exhausted back into the atmosphere. Throughout the past 420 millennia, comprising four interglacial periods, the Vostok record of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is imprinted with, and fully characterized by, the physics of the solubility of CO2 in water, along with the lag in the deep ocean circulation.

Notwithstanding that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, atmospheric carbon dioxide has neither caused nor amplified global temperature increases. Increased carbon dioxide has been an effect of global warming, not a cause. Technically, carbon dioxide is a lagging proxy for ocean temperatures. When global temperature, and along with it, ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to increase.

If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic. While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur. Carbon dioxide does not accumulate in the atmosphere."

http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html

_______________________________________________________________

The graph above represents temperature and CO2 levels over the past 400,000 years. It is the same exact data Al Gore and the rest of the man-made global warmers refer to. The blue line is temps, the red CO2 levels. The deep valleys represent 4 separate glaciation periods. Now look very carefully at the relationship between temps and CO2 levels (the present is on the right hand side of the graph) and keep in mind that Gore claims this data is the 'proof' that CO2 has warmed the earth in the past. But does the data indeed show this? Nope. In fact, rising CO2 levels all throughout this 400,000-year period actually lagged behind temperature increases ...by an average of 800 years! So it couldn't have been CO2 that got Earth out of these past glaciations. Yet Gore dishonestly and continually claims otherwise. Furthermore, the subsequent CO2 level increases due to dissolved CO2 being released from warming oceans, never did lead to additional warming, the so-called "run-away greenhouse effect" that Al Gore and his friends keep warning us about. In short, there is little if any evidence that CO2 had once led to increased warming during the past 400,000 years. -ETL

_______________________________________________________________

"The above chart shows the range of global temperature through the last 500 million years. There is no statistical correlation between the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere through the last 500 million years and the temperature record in this interval. In fact, one of the highest levels of carbon dioxide concentration occurred during a major ice age that occurred about 450 million years ago [Myr]. Carbon dioxide concentrations at that time were about 15 times higher than at present." [also see 180 million years ago, same thing happened]:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=010405M

_______________________________________________________________

So, greenhouse [effect] is all about carbon dioxide, right?

Wrong. The most important players on the greenhouse stage are water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide has been increased to about 0.038% of the atmosphere (possibly from about 0.028% pre-Industrial Revolution) while water in its various forms ranges from 0% to 4% of the atmosphere and its properties vary by what form it is in and even at what altitude it is found in the atmosphere.

In simple terms the bulk of Earth's greenhouse effect is due to water vapor by virtue of its abundance. Water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets), some estimates put water as high as 95% of Earth's total tropospheric greenhouse effect (e.g., Freidenreich and Ramaswamy, 'Solar Radiation Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, Overlap with Water, and a Parameterization for General Circulation Models,' Journal of Geophysical Research 98 (1993):7255-7264).

The remaining portion comes from carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, methane, ozone and miscellaneous other 'minor greenhouse gases.' As an example of the relative importance of water it should be noted that changes in the relative humidity on the order of 1.3-4% are equivalent to the effect of doubling CO2.

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

_______________________________________________________________

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many 'facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activities contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

[icwhatudo]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

and so it begins....

Soon we will be warning against how carbon emissions is causing the globe to cool.

[AmericaUnited]

Oh Geez! Barry Reason for Being is slowly disappearing.

[Doogle]

[SampleMan]

Worldwide sea levels may rise by about 2.6 to 6.6 feet by 2100 thanks to global warming,...

Every single bit of above sea level ice would have to melt off 34' in order to get a 1' rise in the ocean. Now we only have 92 years left until 2100, so to raise the oceans 6.6 feet, we have to be melting the entire ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland by 2.4' per year.

So when is that going to start? Or is all 225' going to melt in the last few years of the century.

Don't these people own a calculator and a brain?

[count-your-change]

“”The real unknown right now is what we call the dynamic effect of ice not melting but just being pushed straight into the ocean,” Pfeffer added, referring to pieces of ice breaking off from huge masses of ice such as glaciers and ice sheets and floating in the sea.”

Pfeffer, the effect is exactly the same on sea levels.

[ShadowAce]

Text reads:

I was watching inconvenient truth the other day and theres the bit where it shows the sea level rising really high and flooding most of the world. Well i live near the sea, and don’t want to drown, so i got to thinking. Maybe if we lower the sea level a bit, when the water level rises then it won’t rise high enough to flood.

Anyway, heres the plan. Everyone who can should take a bucket of sea water and pour it down the sink. If lots of people put the effort in, we could lower the sea level substantially and create a better world for our children to live

[El Gato]

Worldwide sea levels may rise by about 2.6 to 6.6 feet by 2100

Or they may drop as more and more water gets tied up in the snow pack, especially in Northern Eurasia and North America.

The sun is blank--no sunspots. (image is from today Sept. 4, 2008).

[Straight Vermonter]

Wake me when the rise actually reaches 1 inch.

[qam1]

Worldwide sea levels may rise by about 2.6 to 6.6 feet by 2100 thanks to global warming

Good trick since sea levels have been falling for about 3 years now

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

They are apparently so embarrassed by this, they stopped publicly updating their numbers since March

[ravinson]

Pfeffer and scientists at the University of Montana and the University of California at San Diego came up with an estimate of a sea level rise of about 2.6 feet. But their calculations using a "realistic worst-case scenario" produced a predicted rise of 6.6 feet, Pfeffer said.

Even an increase in that range would likely cause major problems in low-lying coastal areas that are home to untold millions of people, he said.

Typical leftist spin, but at least now those "untold millions" have been officially warned by the champions of the War on CO2 that they have over 91 years to move to slightly higher ground.

If that's a "climate crisis" then so is any rainy day to the green clowns.

[Wally_Kalbacken]

I just moved to Boca Raton, FL. In 2100, I’ll be 143 years young. I’ll take the risk!

[Post Toasties]

Well, I’m still holding to the 6 to 9 inches increase by 2100AD that I’ve been predicting for the last 15 years.

[JustDoItAlways]

The current 3 mm per year rise in sea level, if it continued for another 92 years (to 2100), would only be a rise of 1 foot.

So all these models of 2.6 feet to 6.6 feet by 2100 assume that sea level rise will accelerate by 3 to 10 times more than has occurred for several decades now.

Al Gore and James Hansen are assuming it will accelerate to 30 times faster than is currently occurring.

(I should note that some consider even the 3 mms per year is exagerated since the satellite measurements are calibrated to several sea level gauges which are carefully chosen by the warmers to come from areas where the land is subsiding so artifically increases the sea level rise measured and calibrated.)

I will state that again - 3 mm per year is only 1 foot per century. BFD.

[relictele]

Panic is ALWAYS unrealistic.

And making policy based on panic is folly.

Now, fasten your seat belt and wait to drive through the checkpoint.

[Matchett-PI]

Out of their own mouths they exposed their agenda long ago. Why they still think they have any credibility with those capable of critical thought, is inexplicable.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2047988/posts?page=9#9

[DaveArk]

OK, it’s warming. (I know it’s not, bare with me.)

It is a proven fact that the earth cools naturally whenever a big mountain blows its top, Krakatau, Pinatubo, etc. The science is simple, all that soil in the upper atmosphere blocks the sun and we cool.

We have no need to inconvenience everyone with restrictions of their energy usage. Energy is what makes us powerful and allows all the libs to live in the cities and boy did they holler when NY and LA lost power.

I propose we take a bunch of sand out of the Sahara and put it in the upper atmosphere.

Instant Global Cooling (IGC).

Only two questions:

At what temperature do we start?

At what temperature do we stop?

I say we start right away.

If the earth were cooler, the Ice Road truckers would have 6 months to get all that stuff up there instead of three.

If the earth were cooler, the ocean levels would drop, more land would be available so we wouldn’t need birth control to control the population.

I’m sure my fellow freepers can think of many others.

Let’s promote IGC as the cure for AGW.

/s