Climate Change is Junk Science
- Chip
Amanda wondered why I was so concerned about the climate. It's not so much that I'm concerned with the climate; I'm concerned that there's too much junk science, and not enough actual fact involved in the reporting.
We're all gonna die! I think, maybe. But perhaps, not.
The fact that this is all speculation notwithstanding, I want all of you to try an experiment. It's easy, trust me. Put a can of soda in the freezer, overnight. I'm not responsible for the cleanup! You all know that it will explode, and now I'll explain why for those of you who might not know. Water, a liquid, is denser than the solid form, ice. It's a result of the way in which hydrogen and oxygen form bonds between molecules at lower temperatures. So, ice occupies more space than water.
What does this mean? In Antarctica, if you break up the ice sheet and float it away, there wouldn't be a huge effect on sea level. First of all, most of the ice sheet in Antarctica is already in the water, yet still connected to the ice sheet on the mainland. If it breaks off and floats away, no big deal. The same volume of water displaced, only in a different place. It's like moving your ice cubes to the left side of the glass, from the right. The water level won't change. Secondly, if the ice were to float to warmer water, what happens then? The water level won't likely change much then, either, because some of the ice floats above the water level, just like in a glass. If you leave a glass of water with ice lying around, the ice melts as the temperature of the water increases, and the water level barely changes as a result. There's more water, but the volume remains the same, or goes DOWN. It's an experiment that is easily performed, unless you're a climate change scientist. Then, obviously, it's too difficult.
And there's more junk evidence, too. Get this:
Glaciers move because they are growing, not shrinking. And glaciers that grow do so because they are accumulating ice, not losing it. As ice forms at the top of a glacier, it creates pressure that forces the existing glacial ice downward, aided by gravity. If no ice is formed at the top of a glacier, the glacier doesn't grow. If the glacier doesn't grow, the seismic activity would be lessened, not increased. If the glacier melts, then water would be flowing across rock, not ice. That's common sense, isn't it? Anybody can come up with that conclusion, except, of course, Harvard researchers.
The bad part is, according to Google News, there are currently 225 search results for articles relating to this story, indicating that almost anybody who read a Sunday paper at least glanced at this story today. That's tough for little old me to compete with.
Over the past 30 years, temperatures in the Arctic have been creeping up, rising half a degree Celsius with attendant increases in glacial melting and decreases in sea ice. Experts predict that at current levels of greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide alone is at 375 parts per million--the earth may warm by as much as five degrees Celsius, matching conditions roughly 130,000 years ago. Now a refined climate model is predicting, among other things, sea level rises of as much as 20 feet, according to research results published today in the journal Science.
We're all gonna die! I think, maybe. But perhaps, not.
But sea levels rose as much as 20 feet 130,000 years ago and Overpeck speculates that may have been the result of additional melting in Antarctica. After all, the ice there is not all landlocked; some rests in the ocean and a little warming in sea temperatures could melt it or pry it loose. And this time around, the warming is global, rather than concentrated in the Arctic. "In the Antarctic, all you have to do is break up the ice sheet and float it away and that would raise sea level," he says. "It's just like throwing a bunch of ice cubes into a full glass of water and watching the water spill over the top."
[My Emphasis]
The fact that this is all speculation notwithstanding, I want all of you to try an experiment. It's easy, trust me. Put a can of soda in the freezer, overnight. I'm not responsible for the cleanup! You all know that it will explode, and now I'll explain why for those of you who might not know. Water, a liquid, is denser than the solid form, ice. It's a result of the way in which hydrogen and oxygen form bonds between molecules at lower temperatures. So, ice occupies more space than water.
What does this mean? In Antarctica, if you break up the ice sheet and float it away, there wouldn't be a huge effect on sea level. First of all, most of the ice sheet in Antarctica is already in the water, yet still connected to the ice sheet on the mainland. If it breaks off and floats away, no big deal. The same volume of water displaced, only in a different place. It's like moving your ice cubes to the left side of the glass, from the right. The water level won't change. Secondly, if the ice were to float to warmer water, what happens then? The water level won't likely change much then, either, because some of the ice floats above the water level, just like in a glass. If you leave a glass of water with ice lying around, the ice melts as the temperature of the water increases, and the water level barely changes as a result. There's more water, but the volume remains the same, or goes DOWN. It's an experiment that is easily performed, unless you're a climate change scientist. Then, obviously, it's too difficult.
And there's more junk evidence, too. Get this:
Goran Ekstrom of Harvard University reported a marked increase in so-called glacial earthquakes (seismic events recorded throughout the world when Greenland's glaciers slip past rock) since 2002.
Glaciers move because they are growing, not shrinking. And glaciers that grow do so because they are accumulating ice, not losing it. As ice forms at the top of a glacier, it creates pressure that forces the existing glacial ice downward, aided by gravity. If no ice is formed at the top of a glacier, the glacier doesn't grow. If the glacier doesn't grow, the seismic activity would be lessened, not increased. If the glacier melts, then water would be flowing across rock, not ice. That's common sense, isn't it? Anybody can come up with that conclusion, except, of course, Harvard researchers.
The bad part is, according to Google News, there are currently 225 search results for articles relating to this story, indicating that almost anybody who read a Sunday paper at least glanced at this story today. That's tough for little old me to compete with.
