If the ipcc seems biased

[RainbowSingularity]

I didn't, but he did only mention the poles.

From what I can gather (pop-science sources, so read with care):

• if all of Greenland's ice melted then sea-level would rise c.24 feet.
• if Artic melted - minimal sea-rise
• 
  
• if Antarctica melted - the West Antarctic ice sheet would raise sea-levels by c.10-11 feet; the Antarctic Peninsula ice sheet a mere 1 foot, but the East Antarctica ice sheet, however, would raise the sea-level by c.180 feet!

[*] - http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/qu...-global-sea-level-rise-quickly-likely-happen/

if all of Greenland's ice melted then sea-level would rise c.24 feet.

the sea level at the bottom of most capital citys would rise up by 5 meters
most main citys are only around 3 meters above high tide mark
so that would mean roughly 2 meter deep water in the ground level of all capital citys and all lower ground parking buildings apartments.. flooded and useless.

wiping out trillions of dollars

however,
(attempting to translate to avoid using idiot language) ...
as global sea levels rise, they melt ice that they touch
so 5 meters of rise from greenland would melt other ice which would raise the sea level in theory, by roughly the same amount, which is 5 meters
= 10 meters rise from greenland melting(because the rising sea level melt other ice sheets)

soo
greenland melting =
imagine 8 meters of water in all down town citys

how many trillion dollars would that wipe out ?

new york for instance

how much would it cost to completely re-build new york 20 kilometers inland ?

100 Trillion ? roughly ... ?

where is the money ?

if Artic melted - minimal sea-rise

arctic is a region(attempting to avoid speaking worse idiot)
colloquially it most commonly refers to the thin 2 meter deep layer of ice covering the sea in the north pole.
this melts away to around 30% currently and is expected to melt completely given Co2 emissions and global heating and climate change.

this melts and freezes in a annual cycle and previously melted to around 65%
now it is melting to around 25%
(roughly speaking, avoiding idiot language)

if Antarctica melted

everyone is completely fucked

Note
whiny baby "its not true" religion doesn't change scientific fact

 

[sculptor]

sculptor:

Are you a denier?

lol

 

[RainbowSingularity]

socioeconomic information relevant

playing hide the sausage ...
"hide the reality of the cost by propaganda to direct attention away from the financial cost"

the real financial cost is soo off the chart and the average leaders lack around 50% mental capacity to lead...
many of them are playing "hide the sausage" because they want to be king of the shit pile as it all burns.
they think their money and power will buy them a ring side seat out of reach of the plague of dying billions of people.

So the resulting change in sea water levels would not be exactly nil. Granted, we are talking about a small effect, even less than that due to thermal expansion.

the density of the ice caps thus having greater gravitational mass press down the existing available water
thus...
as it melts it becomes larger in volume raising the bottom level water mark by an increasing factor.

however, considering the antarctic ice would create 60 meters of sea level rise wiping out around 5 billion people and creating massive plagues and disease, killing off coral reefs and such like...
the difference is like 2 arguing stock traders who have just jumped off the roof on wall st.

 

[James R]

Thus the volume of fresh water produced by the melting of the ice will be slightly greater than the sea water the ice displaced beneath the surface.

Shouldn't that be "slightly less"?

 

[James R]

lol

I'll take that as a "yes".

 

[RainbowSingularity]

I'll take that as a "yes".

Shouldn't that be "slightly less"?

there is some crack-pot anti global warming propaganda being spread by quasi christian groups saying that the ice melting wont increase sea levels because most of it is already ice in the water.

it seems to be deliberate propaganda targeting those who will believe anything told to them by one of their superior authority soap box users.

i just ignore it mostly.

the antarctic ice extends below sea level in some parts.
and if janus is well versed in climate science then there is some minor technical details at work.
the massive amount of ice in Antarctica is soo large that its weight presses down on the earth
compressing some parts of the water table
scientists have found there are also what appear to be lakes under the ice

the propoganda angle is that this ice is already in the water.
however it is on land liek the greenland ice sheet and some of the arctic ice sheet
but more importantly in the arctic region there is glaciers which hold a lot of water and they are on land.

the largest ice sheets are held in by sea ice sheets and glaciers are held in by ice sheets

while if all the ice sheets on water melted it may not add much to sea level rise, however, the issue would be the vast exponential acceleration of the glaciers then calving off and into the sea, which would significantly increase sea level rise.

just green land ice on land would add 5 meters to sea level wiping out most capital citys.

etc etc etc
preaching what is sold to idiots as religion so it should not be believed because it is a war of religion is pointless
such people are cultists who associate to religion.

fresh water being less dense than salt water means it will float on the top
proportionately that means the portion of ice that is already submerged will balance out to sit on top of the sea water
thus a glacial face being say 300 meters high. though 150 to 200 meters might be under water and a 1/3 above...
all the that fresh water will sit on top
does this then compes the existing water water that is denser ?
yes obviously but not by much, more soo because it spreads out and salinates
as it salinates it then balances out to equal the salt water.
is there a land based abundance of salt being removed which will then be absorbed by the water and make it more salty ?
actually yes
that is a tricky equation and one the scientists would likely only postulate as the over all vast amount of fresh water would make that a smaller figure.

there is some very tricky science involved
and on many different levels
way past the understanding that the average person wishes to spend on learning about climate science or artic melt, glaciers or sea ice, or ice sheets
glacial flow rates and combined melt effects of rising water levels
much less water acidity levels and melting from under the ice sheets which is the big issue

there is some new issues arising where there appears to be very deep very long holes in masive ice sheets
they also have layers of water
these appear to have been existing for thousands of years potentially, but they have done so because of the stable cold.
the layers of ice create insulation levels

ash and air pollution particulates falling on glaciers and ice sheets is a big issue and hard to track

the more smog the humans create the more falls on the ice and melts it exponentially faster
WAY faster than scientists have been able to measure

soo combined effects of exponential melt
are
ocean acidity on the under side of ice sheets
pollution dust and volcanic ash falling on ice sheets and glaciers
accelerated glacial calving
lakes on ice sheets creating massive moulins which lubricate the ice sheets and make them slide even faster toward the sea.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moulin_(geomorphology)
and glacial speed to sea via ice sheets melting and unplugging the glaciers.

current glacial speeds are now tracked in some places around 6 times faster than they have traveled in many thousands of years.

this matched with rising acidity and ash are quite a significant unknown potential exponential melt effect.

 

[Janus58]

Shouldn't that be "slightly less"?

No. sea water water, being more dense than fresh water means the ice will float "higher" or displace a smaller volume of sea water than it would if floating in fresh water (This is an effect ships leaving the ocean and entering fresh water rivers need to be aware of. Going from salt to fresh water causes its draft to increase and the ship to sit deeper in the water. ) Fresh water ice floating in fresh water displaces a volume of water equal to the volume of water it will turn into. Fresh water ice floating in sea water displaces a smaller volume of sea water, but produces the same volume of water when it melts.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

Fresh water ice floating in sea water displaces a smaller volume of sea water, but produces the same volume of water when it melts.

evangelical church hitler asks his sheople ...
have you heard of climate change ice melt ?
and they all say
yes sir massa

& then evangelical hitler gets little jimmy bed-warmer up in front of the brown shirt congregation and says
"little-jimmy-bed-warmer-has a question"

"oh listen hark ye lord we bow to such a lowly little bed-warmer for we are soo humble to 'the man'

shine your bright hole light unnus

"go on little jimmy bed warmer... ask your question and we shall talk gods words of truth

"dear godly godness of all mighty big long great things in the sky above.... if my glass of lemon aid has ice cubes... when the ice cubes melt will my glass spill on the floor? "

Evangelical hitler calls out to his brown nosed brown shirt sheople and says
"oh praise be for we are saved by the little jimmy wet-behind the ears-bed-warmer bless his tiny naked body warming all those church beds...
and grant him the power of listening to the massa"

... and the sheople lean forward on their big fat asses perched on cheap wooden pews that the church for some reason collected several million dollars to pay for....


...

ive heard this story before
thanks

 

[RainbowSingularity]

they have been consistently timid in the face of the strong political pressure financed by fossil fuel interests.

there is very little(if any) industry that is not driven by fossil fuel.

the way to avoid change is to turn it into an Us-Verses-Them-Religous-Political-Football

which is exactly what they(those who oppose climate change science and environmental regulations) have done

on one side you have the pretend liberals declaring such organizations should have no teeth
on the other you have corporations driven by people who say their corporation must be protected by teeth from the dangers of government regulation.

it is designed to fail

now that global public support is increasing for the likes of the ipcc, it gives political teeth to the organisation which then becomes a danger to the tyrants and the Greedy cannibals

jumping on a bandwagon either way may be what they want to tip the apple cart up in the middle of the sewer pond

... gun rights for climate change ... pure logic

 

[James R]

Janus58:

Thanks. You're correct. My mistake.

 

[RainbowSingularity]

So, we have many people quoting the part that the ipcc looks at as though that were the whole of climate science instead of the small part within the ipcc's mandate.

pulling the mani pendulum back to 0

keeping in mind a few things
(no specific order)
1 massive quantity of scientists around the world studying things which relate to and contain data that falls inside basic climate science
2 regulations which prevent businesses from exploiting the environment and poisoning people
3 independent preservation principals to preserve natural habitats seperate to the nature of human inhabitation on large, city or suburben or farm type environments
4 propaganda
5 miss information
6 religion
7 national boundary restrictions to suffer other states actions or inaction's
(8) conspiracy's

notes
religion, being propagated by those anti regulation people seeking to put propaganda into miss information
delivering it to the public to define insular quantifiable realms to force subjective scientific factualisation of absolute data sets.
...

e.g
if you cant prove the earth is flat, you cant prove there is a god, so all religion should be illegal = logic

if you cant prove Co2 caused the ice age you cant prove humans create climate change

if you cant prove humans created the ice age you cant prove climate science is real

both sides
all humans only want cash so all words are lies to get cash

indoctrinated cult(religious) homicidal/suicidal ideology

 

[sculptor]

I'll take that as a "yes".

and, that's how it begins, making assumptions not based on reality nor evidence.......................then, keep repeating it until you get others to parrot your views. and,,,,,,,voila, another claimed 97%....................................seriously, who needs reality when you have a rich and active fantasy life?

 

[exchemist]

and, that's how it begins, making assumptions not based on reality nor evidence.......................then, keep repeating it until you get others to parrot your views. and,,,,,,,voila, another claimed 97%....................................seriously, who needs reality when you have a rich and active fantasy life?

It's your own fault for being evasive. Why not answer his question if you don't like the inference?

I must say that, looking what you posted on the last thread (now in the cesspool), your actions seem consistent with you being indeed a climate change denier. You appear to have a penchant for dragging up obscure findings, quite often omitting any background or context, just like the quote-mining technique that creationists notoriously use in the hope of tripping up what they call "evolutionists". And you present these nuggets pretending to be innocently "just asking a question", as so many creationists like to do. I smell a rat when I see these posts of yours, and clearly I am not the only one here who does.

In that cesspooled thread you had got some obscure paper from a website dedicated to climate change denial - while denying you ever visited such sites - and posted a graph from somewhere else, with no source identified and hence no provenance. And then you asked what we were to make of it all. You had of course selected that item specifically because you hoped it threw a spanner in the works of the idea of man made climate change.

And now you are continuing the theme, by suggesting the IPCC is biased because it is focused on man-made effects on the climate, as if you seriously imagine the science the IPCC relies on has not spent any time on disentangling man-made effects from natural ones. What an idiotic suggestion. As for the complaint about everyone focusing on CO2, even schoolchildren today are well aware that methane from livestock is a powerful climate change agent, as well that forests felled for more grazing land reduce the ability of the Earth to absorb CO2. So the science is getting across really quite well to society - at any rate in Europe - in spite of its complexity. It is not as muddled and misleading as you suggest.

 

[sculptor]

It's your own fault for being evasive. Why not answer his question if you don't like the inference?

I must say that, looking what you posted on the last thread (now in the cesspool), your actions seem consistent with you being indeed a climate change denier. You appear to have a penchant for dragging up obscure findings, quite often omitting any background or context, just like the quote-mining technique that creationists notoriously use in the hope of tripping up what they call "evolutionists". And you present these nuggets pretending to be innocently "just asking a question", as so many creationists like to do. I smell a rat when I see these posts of yours, and clearly I am not the only one here who does.

In that cesspooled thread you had got some obscure paper from a website dedicated to climate change denial - while denying you ever visited such sites - and posted a graph from somewhere else, with no source identified and hence no provenance. And then you asked what we were to make of it all. You had of course selected that item specifically because you hoped it threw a spanner in the works of the idea of man made climate change.

And now you are continuing the theme, by suggesting the IPCC is biased because it is focused on man-made effects on the climate, as if you seriously imagine the science the IPCC relies on has not spent any time on disentangling man-made effects from natural ones. What an idiotic suggestion. As for the complaint about everyone focusing on CO2, even schoolchildren today are well aware that methane from livestock is a powerful climate change agent, as well that forests felled for more grazing land reduce the ability of the Earth to absorb CO2. So the science is getting across really quite well to society - at any rate in Europe - in spite of its complexity. It is not as muddled and misleading as you suggest.

the IPCC is biased because it is focused on man-made effects on the climate

,

IPCC relies on has not spent any time on disentangling man-made effects from natural ones.

OK so is it your claim that the ipcc has considered papers from astrophysicists in their review of the literature?
If so:
Can you prove it?
As I have stated, that is not in their mandate.
Just because they are biased in determining what they will look at does not mean that their conclusions as to that which is within their purview is wrong-----
What it does mean is that the ipcc are not looking at the whole of climate science.
If they were, then you should be able to explain the warmth of mis 11, or mis 5 or mis 9 or that of the holocene climate optimum on co2....
Which you can not do.

 

[sculptor]

When I stated that the IPCC was biased, no pejorative was intended. If you saw that, then it was within the eye of the beholder.
The investigation, and resultant statement was made in response to the complaints of the astrophysicist who are also climate scientists.

 

[Quantum Quack]

When I stated that the IPCC was biased, no pejorative was intended. If you saw that, then it was within the eye of the beholder.
The investigation, and resultant statement was made in response to the complaints of the astrophysicist who are also climate scientists.

perhaps a better question would be:
What methods do the IPCC use to minimize confirmation bias in their analysis?

 

[exchemist]

When I stated that the IPCC was biased, no pejorative was intended. If you saw that, then it was within the eye of the beholder.
The investigation, and resultant statement was made in response to the complaints of the astrophysicist who are also climate scientists.

Accusing a body, whose job it is to advise governments about science, of bias is inherently pejorative. You know that perfectly well. This looks like more of the faux-innocence from you that I associate with creationists.

Look I do not mind debating science, including challenges to existing theories. But I need to believe my interlocutor is arguing a coherent position, in good faith, and giving me the background to the information he presents for discussion, not just trying to serve up selected and disguised tidbits to serve a political agenda. I'm afraid I have little confidence that you are doing any of this and other readers evidently think the same.

 

[billvon]

When I stated that the IPCC was biased, no pejorative was intended.

So stating that you are biased on this issue because of your politics is not pejorative. Got it.

 

[sculptor]

QQ and X
Perhaps what we have here is a set/subset confusion?
Just reading the ipcc mandate clearly places them within a specific ghg subset of the whole of climatology. (ergo-bias)
Within a subset, you will have peer group identification. As such, one cannot completely eliminate confirmation bias.
The only way to eliminate or reduce the bias and achieve a more objective viewpoint is by first recognizing the subset as a subset. (that's both the hardest and easiest step)
There will always be those who believe that their subset is the whole set, and refuse to look at or see any other subsets.
And so, thereby the science is diminished.

 

[sculptor]

So stating that you are biased on this issue because of your politics is not pejorative. Got it.

Do try an keep your political bias out of science discussions!