Patterico's Pontifications

Yeah, well…this is about as much as one can expect from our favorite clown nose on, clown nose off (h/t our host) alleged “comedian.” Watch as he still backtracks to make fun of Inofe, even though every thing the man has said about AGW has been almost completely vindicated. Talk about screwing the pooch on this one.

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:18 pm

When the rats start heading for the lifeboats, it’s time to pay attention. Puffington Post is still down in the engineroom trying to stem the flow but the White Star chairman is already in his skirt and shawl, holding the baby, and in the first lifeboat. Time to give it up, folks. It’s every lefty for himself.

Mike K (2cf494) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:34 pm

yeah, jon stewart is staunch enough as a liberal that he won’t admit that there is something there, unless there is something there. if you lose him, you have lost all liberals capable of listening to reason.

A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:40 pm

I agree with the first three comments: it is nice to see Stewart meander off the liberal plantation for one brief shining moment, though there can be no doubt that he will somehow make amends somewhere down the line.

Maybe I am predisposed to dislike Jon Stewart, but really, what’s with all the facial grimaces and bug-eye poses? Is that supposed to be comedic genius or something? It reminds me of Jerry Lewis when he is doing his most obnoxious mugging.

JVW (0fe413) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:46 pm

In a (perhaps) related development, today the Australian Parliament put the brakes on a cap-and-trade bill.

JVW (0fe413) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:52 pm

We must do something immediately at Copenhagen !!! YYYYYYEEEEEAAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHH !!!

JD (4a5c67) — 12/2/2009 @ 1:54 pm

The media is beginning to turn around on this. Andrew Revkin at the New York Times has been giving space on his blog to critics, and discussing the implications of the Warmergate emails. John Tierney’s column was good. And now Jon Stewart.

The AGW crowd is probably in a state of shock. They are used to being lionized for saving the planet. But for those of them who truly are in it for the science, Warmergate is the best thing that could have happened.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (05da40) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:02 pm

what’s with all the facial grimaces and bug-eye poses? Is that supposed to be comedic genius or something?

I’ve been saying for years that Stewart’s schtick is quite reminiscent of very bad Borscht Belt comedians, back when they used to do their acts in the summer in the Catskills.

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:06 pm

…and although I usually detest Lewis, he’s actually a fairly good actor in straight dramatic roles.

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:07 pm

btw, if you want to confuse a global warming advocate, ask them this: if the ice melts at the north pole, will the oceans rise?

They will usually say yes.

then you point out that the correct answer is no. when ice melts into water, it actually shrinks. water is one of the few subsances in the universe that expands when it is solidified (as anyone who has ever left a water bottle in the freezer can tell you.

A.W. (e7d72e) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:12 pm

“The media is beginning to turn around on this.”

My guess is they’ll cut back on planned coverage of Copenhagen, and run fewer and fewer AGW stories..until everyone will have forgotten about it.

“Oh look, someone crashed the state dinner” stories will help too.

cassandra in MT (5a5d33) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:13 pm

“then you point out that the correct answer is no. when ice melts into water, it actually shrinks. water is one of the few subsances in the universe that expands when it is solidified (as anyone who has ever left a water bottle in the freezer can tell you.”

You forgot the salt:

http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

[Found in spam filter. — DRJ]

imdw (2f5e2f) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:17 pm

cassandra,
I’m sure they hope it will all just go away. But every event, every plan for AGW will have an asterisk by it. The smell won’t go away as long as the AGW cheerleaders continue to play denialist. As we learned in Watergate, the coverup can be far more costly than the original offense.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (05da40) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:18 pm

Look at this WSJ piece, and notice who is the author.

If climategate leads to greater openness and transparency in climate science, and makes it less partisan, it will have done a good thing. It will enable science to function in the effective way it must do in public policy deliberations: Not as the place where we import all of our legitimate disagreements, but one powerful way of offering insight about how the world works and the potential consequences of different policy choices. The important arguments about political beliefs and ethical values can then take place in open and free democracies, in those public spaces we have created for political argumentation.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (05da40) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:23 pm

Brother Bradley, when I click on your name, it doesn’t go where I want to go, you ought to have a look/see.

ropelight (7379dd) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:27 pm

#10

Although the volume of ice exceeds that of water, its mass has already been displaced. If floating ice melts there is zero effect on sea level. If the ice is on land or being supported on the sea floor, sea levels will rise.

Archimedes of Syracuse discovered this fact and invented the science of hydrostatics about 2300 years ago.

arch (24f4f2) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:36 pm

ropelight,
I just checked, and my name is clickable. Here is where it goes.

You might try testing with another browser just to be sure.

Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (05da40) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:37 pm

I’ve heard some Libertarian views slip from Stewart every now and then. Though his core beliefs are no doubt Liberal, make no mistake that at the end of the day, he is an entertainer that panders to a specific audience. Which begs the question, why not move RedEye to 10PM CST?

sybilll (236577) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:42 pm

These emails should serve as a wake up call to those convinced by scientists that man is responsible for global warming. If nothing else, we need an open debate.

I suspect that the funding for AGW has corrupted the science, so before we embrace draconian measures to fix the problem, we should see some proof that it is real. There seems to be a lot more evidence that it is a hoax. Scientists do not conceal the facts if they know they are right.

arch (24f4f2) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:43 pm

Brother:
I just checked, and my name is clickable. Here is where it goes.
*snort*

sybilll (236577) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:45 pm

You anti-science denialists are hellbent on making the Earth into your little toilet where you can pollute at will consequences be damned We may or may not know if anthropogenic global warming is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt at this point in time but given what we already know it is imperative that we take drastic steps to reshape our actions to save the planet You new earth godfreaks are going to kill us all.

JD (4a5c67) — 12/2/2009 @ 2:49 pm

Does not using punctuation save the planet, or what? Uh oh, I just killed Uruguay.

sybilll (236577) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:05 pm

I forgot the /sarc tag, sybilll 😉

JD (4a5c67) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:08 pm

Why in the world are you guys watching Jon Stewart?
Come with me, grabe the remote and switch to the knee-slapping, dead-on, status-quo-busting conservative comedy channel.
It’s on channel, uh, the one that, uh, it’s just before channel, uh……never mind.
Funny doesn’t work in conservatism. Except for the natural kind — meaning unintended.
It’s not that the joke’s on you. You are the joke.

Larry Reilly (45c8f2) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:22 pm

Have you tried the little videos run on NewsBusters?

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:23 pm

I’m not yet ready to get all worked up over the release of this stuff. Yes, it’s embarassing for the Globulls**tters but they just might ride out the storm.

But, I have my hopes up that some one or more of the alert gotcha’ scientist types will start labeling this for what it has been – Lysenkoism. When that finally happens I’ll know there’s some hope for the future.

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:28 pm

Mawy woke up from crashing after its bender, puked, and went right back to sleep.

JD (eabe30) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:34 pm

There is Red Eye on Fox News…

At 3:00am it has higher Demo ratings than CNN does at 8pm.

I don’t have Fox News–too cheap to pay for cable–and really don’t watch it since it is a month behind on Hulu–but the few shows I have watched seem pretty funny.

John Stewart can be entertaining too…

But I think it is hilarious that more Democrats watch Fox than MSNBC and CNN combined.

BfC (5209ec) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:38 pm

So how long before the world finds out they destroyed all the data so they could tell the story they wanted to tell, instead of the truth.

bill-tb (365bd9) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:42 pm

“then you point out that the correct answer is no. when ice melts into water, it actually shrinks. water is one of the few subsances in the universe that expands when it is solidified (as anyone who has ever left a water bottle in the freezer can tell you.”

If the ice isn’t floating the oceans will rise. If the ice is floating… the oceans will rise:

http://www.physorg.com/news5619.html

imdw (e870b9) — 12/2/2009 @ 3:50 pm

According to imdw, no matter what the ice is doing, the oceans will rise.

JD (eabe30) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:09 pm

I think Jon Stewart is basically funny and the one thing that he always trashes is teh stupid. He’s tended to be pretty gender neutral and class neutral and even (somewhat surprisingly) political party neutral when it comes to that. Teh stupid of the scientists is what he was harping on today so it’s totally in character for him to do that. OK, he didn’t go far enough—-but it’s more than a start and Jon hit on some pretty key points to a key demographic which may not have been following Climategate all that closely. And, the Al Gore dig was sweet icing on the cake.

elissa (eaa327) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:11 pm

“According to imdw, no matter what the ice is doing, the oceans will rise.”

Did you read the link? Try reading the link. You won’t come off so ignorant.

imdw (15129e) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:14 pm

Jon is obviously very smart. He’s building credibility. Obama is going to go down as a total joke. Ten years from him he will be radioactive (and probably an extremely radical critic of the USA). Stewart is on record.

I don’t mind that he’s biased to the left. He’s not ridiculously dishonest to his audience. They have some idea that the left is full of gasbag crooks. Some shows do all they can to simply ignore this huge aspect of life.

Dustin (cf255c) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:30 pm

imdw – your URL goes to a site where dubious science is shown … with at least 2 significant problems …

1) The photos shown are cropped such that one cannot see if the ice shown is actually floating rather than simply resting on the bottom of the beaker …

2) Just how concentrated is the seawater in the beaker ? If the concentration of the “concentrated seawater” is sufficiently high, then one might be able to show what the site purports to show …

Alasdair (e7cb73) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:38 pm

“I forgot the /sarc tag, sybilll

Comment by JD — 12/2/2009 @ 3:08 pm

”

On this site, “Comment by JD” is directly equivalent to “/sarc” tag, isn’t it ? (grin)

Alasdair (e7cb73) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:40 pm

@29:

This is the oldest “trick” question in fluid statics.

Try this experiment:

Fill a glass with ice and set it on a level countertop. Carefully fill the glass to the rim with water from a pitcher. Let it sit overnight.

In the morning, will the glass have overflowed?

Answer: NO. Go ahead and try it.

And if you want to repeat it with salt water, you will find the exact same result.

Dr. K (adb7ba) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:48 pm

JD, I knew you forgot your sarc tag, I just relish in visiting the sites of the likes to which the moronic quote you posted. 🙂 But, all is OK, imdw is here to set us straight. Phew, I wait with baited breath for their next falsified, I mean, intruiging entry. No sarc tag for that one. They seem to have a formidable opponent in Alasdair.

sybilll (236577) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:51 pm

It’s actually quite heartening to me that Stewart picked up the story when it was only a week old. It took him longer to pick up on ACORN. Which, BTW, notice that he repeated the ACORN thing right before mocking Algore.

Stewart is funny when he’s picking on everyone. That picking on everyone is one of the reasons I love South Park. It brings teh funny every time AND skewers everyone in the process for their stupidity.

Vivian Louise (643333) — 12/2/2009 @ 4:57 pm

and class neutral and even (somewhat surprisingly) political party neutral when it comes to that.

Cannot disagree more with this statement (respectfully) – I started watching Stewart when he took over the show from Kilbourne, and he inexorably started sliding over to the left after Bush won the first election…then he went over the side after he won re – election. You should have seen his show’s election night coverages of both of those contests. If you had tuned in at the wrong moment, you would’ve thought someone close to him had just died or some other national calmunity had hit. And Stewart was not being ironic, or post – ironic, or deadpan, etc. He was obviously pissed and extremely upset. No way is he even close to the middle of the road – this is just his way of having his cake and eating it as well – he openly rooted for Obama to win, and now he’s having buyer’s remorse. BFD.

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:06 pm

Imdw’s construct above is interesting, as regardless of the variable, the end result is the same.

It reminds me of the climate crisis people, in that the fix for global warming and global cooling is the same thing. No matter what the problem is, the solution seems to always be the same.

JD (787a1f) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:09 pm

If Stewart keeps up this equal opportunity slamming, his poor audience won’t know what the heck to do. Should we laugh, should we cluck our tongues in disapproval, should we applaud, should we walk out in protest?!

After all, these people expect the hard news from Stewart which always supports and promotes the liberal pov – this is throwing them a serious curve ball. I don’t know that they can handle much more… ACORN, GW… when will the madness end?

Dana (e9ba20) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:10 pm

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

TheAudacity (2fd5ad) — 12/2/2009 @ 5:50 pm

Even when he says something I agree with, I still dislike Jon Stewart.

gp (d1217f) — 12/2/2009 @ 6:11 pm

Read the HuffPo piece above. Marveled that it was allowed. Then read darling Arianna’s post-script the apologized and claimed that an editor should never have permitted it.

Knew not to trust that particular leopard to change it’s spots.

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 6:48 pm

“1) The photos shown are cropped such that one cannot see if the ice shown is actually floating rather than simply resting on the bottom of the beaker …

2) Just how concentrated is the seawater in the beaker ? If the concentration of the “concentrated seawater” is sufficiently high, then one might be able to show what the site purports to show …”

What did you think of their explanation of how it would work?

“Imdw’s construct above is interesting, as regardless of the variable, the end result is the same.”

The point is that floating ice on salt water will melt and add to the water level. Clearly ice not floating will add to the water level — it wasn’t effecting it to begin with. You’re looking at the wrong “variable” — the volume will go up for different reasons and different amounts under those two different circumstances.

“And if you want to repeat it with salt water, you will find the exact same result.”

Well it appears that they did do it with salt water….

imdw (89ba95) — 12/2/2009 @ 6:49 pm

Where is the postscript, Robert N.?

DRJ (dee47d) — 12/2/2009 @ 6:53 pm

It’s an ‘Update’ at the bottom of the Kevin Granida piece slamming the Ambler one.

Sorry, my bad, meant to include that in first post but somehow deleted it in the transfer from ‘Word’ to comment – then didn’t edit preview.

Past my bedtime I guess, he cringed.

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:01 pm

That’s an amazing PS, Robert N, and thanks for alerting me to it. Here it is for anyone who’s interested:

UPDATE:
Arianna Huffington has put out the following message:

Harold Ambler reached out to me about posting a critical piece on Al Gore and the environment. We are always open to posts that present opinions contrary to HuffPost’s editorial view — and have welcomed many conservative voices, such as David Frum, Tony Blankley, Michael Smerconish, Bob Barr, Joe Scarborough, Jim Talent, etc., to the site. We have featured also countless posts from the leading lights of the Green movement, including Robert Redford, Laurie David, Carl Pope, Van Jones, David Roberts, and many others — and I myself have written extensively about the global warming crisis, and have been highly critical of those who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific evidence.

When Ambler sent his post, I forwarded it to one of our associate blog editors to evaluate, not having read it. I get literally hundreds of posts a week submitted like this and obviously can’t read them all — which is why we have an editorial process in place. The associate blog editor published the post. It was an error in judgment. I would not have posted it. Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

DRJ (dee47d) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:28 pm

Boy, that indeed is a real doozy.

Love this: I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue.

Hope she never gets selected to sit on a jury.

Dana (e9ba20) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:36 pm

Ariana shows that for her, its not science but religious faith.

SPQR (26be8b) — 12/2/2009 @ 7:39 pm

My, my – Mr. Ambler’s piece followed by darling Arianna’s apolgia have garned quite a bit of heat on HuffPo.

Mr. Ambler’s response to the heat is as follows:

As I have mentioned elsewhere in response to another ad hominem attack on me, my complete response will be provided to Arianna Huffington a couple of weeks from now. Whether she chooses to publish it will, of course, be entirely up to her.

A matter of some urgency, however, is the means by which my article was posted on the Huffington Post. Kevin Grandia writes, “I am hoping that Ambler’s post was some type of technical glitch or editorial goof-up because it is this type of misinformation from wannabe scientists that are a major reason so many people are willing to pass over global warming as a concern they have to deal with.”

My sole contact at HuffPo prior to being accepted for publication was with Arianna Huffington herself. It was Arianna who read my piece, accepted it, and directed her staff to post it. That Post staff members would allow a claim of this kind to be part of an attack on a new poster, without internal fact-checking, is a shame.

I remain grateful to Arianna for posting me.

Follow the fun in the comments after Grandia’s venomous comments.

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:29 pm

unhhh, that’s ‘darling Arianna’s apologia’ not aplogia.

Though I may suffer apoplexy if I don’t quit screwing up my editing.

Robert N. (ad4ee7) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:31 pm

I notice Mr. Ambler’s blog post was dated January 2009. Apparently he wasn’t invited back.

DRJ (dee47d) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:42 pm

Jon. Your not Craig Ferguson. So stop stealing his act you jerkoff. Be yourself before you lose another show.

John (4e0dda) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:47 pm

Jon. Your not Craig Ferguson. So stop stealing his act you jerkoff. Be yourself before you lose another show.

John (4e0dda) — 12/2/2009 @ 8:47 pm

I’m always amused by comments such as the one that Arianna posted on her site:

Although HuffPost welcomes a vigorous debate on many subjects, I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues.

The “climate crisis” is one of my major amusements. I’ve lived on God’s green earth for slightly more than 50 years.

The year I was born, my state was in the throes of a drought unprecedented in history. It didn’t end until I was about six. And, when it exactly ended is still up for debate.

Since that time, I’ve seen several other droughts and rains. But I can only speak for what happened locally.

I’m not so stupid that I think that humans can not have an effect on the environment. I’m also not so stupid to think that humans can affect a billions-year old global environment in the course of decades.

I’ve spoken of hubris before regarding the intention of the green movement. Its goal is really more than survival. Its goal is the power to control.

The slimy snake of socialism always finds its easiest way to power by preying on the weak-minded.

Ag80 (3d1543) — 12/2/2009 @ 9:46 pm

When I watch that video, which I posted on my blog as well, I see Jon Stewart mocking all the desperate conservatives who think this supposed “leak” debunks the entire theory of climate change.

mikeb302000 (6127bb) — 12/3/2009 @ 1:50 am

Of course you do, mikey, since you don’t have a logical bone in your body and since you don’t even have three brain cells with which to form a coalition of mind. Go back to smoking your tea and sipping your hash. If it weren’t for your ability to type with the assistance of another, I’d say you were brain-dead.

John Hitchcock (3fd153) — 12/3/2009 @ 2:01 am

When my ice cube is melting it does not crack in the middle. But anyway.

More likely seismic activity in Antarctica. But why bother checking — that is warming too like 2012 movie.

HeavenSent (01a566) — 12/3/2009 @ 4:47 am

“Of course you do, mikey, since you don’t have a logical bone in your body and since you don’t even have three brain cells with which to form a coalition of mind.”

I haven’t seen the video, but the use of the “Internet you invented” trope could support mikey’s interpretation. Not watching the video I can’t conclude though.

imdw (c40a44) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:01 am

When I watch that video, which I posted on my blog as well, I see Jon Stewart mocking all the desperate conservatives who think this supposed “leak” debunks the entire theory of climate change.

The word Stewart used was “disproves,” and no, the leaked emails do not disprove agw, but only because agw was never proven. As a theory, it relied on complex computer models with source code kept secret from those who might poke holes in it, data that has been cooked, with the raw data discarded, and collusion between hucksters to prevent any meaningful examination of the foundational evidence behind the theory. It has not been disproved by the emails because it was never proved. It was asserted, but never supported with free and open evidence.

Not that I would ever mock someone’s religious beliefs. Western civilization has a proud heritage of apocalyptic cults rising to prominence and then fizzling when the founder runs off with the trove of the believers.

Hadlowe (734a58) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:10 am

Imdw – Barcky stopped water from rising.

JD (7036fb) — 12/3/2009 @ 5:56 am

Not watching the video I can’t conclude though.

Yet you post an opinion on it anyway – get a brain, will ya?

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:08 am

“Imdw – Barcky stopped water from rising.”

Too bad we can’t hack Archimedes’ computer and debunk Archimedes’ principle.

“Yet you post an opinion on it anyway – get a brain, will ya?”

What’s the problem here? The opinion is on what I did read. I said so.

imdw (8e7a13) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:35 am

Too bad we can’t hack Archimedes’ computer and debunk Archimedes’ principle.

We can’t?

I find that statement from you to be odd, since it suggests an understanding of the density of water that your previous statements have clearly proven you do not possess.

Water expands when it freezes – that means it floats. When it melts, the same mass takes up less volume.

I know science is hard, dude, but try and not be a complete and total fucktard, ok?

Scott Jacobs (445f98) — 12/3/2009 @ 6:39 am

The Seattle Times finally got around to covering it today in the print edition (page A7), after grudgingly emitting some tiny notes in their online editions (nearly impossible to find) for a week or so.

Today, of course, they cover the Congressional activity, and do their very best to quote all the Authorities who tell us earnestly that the science is indeed settled and AGW is a sure thing – despite the measured drop in temperatures over the last twelve years while CO2 continued to increase.

Roger Simon has nailed it: It is also why the mainstream media was so slow to report the East Anglia CRU emails and documents. They know that if you begin to report these things, you have to report on a lot of other things they have so scrupulously chosen to avoid.

Insufficiently Sensitive (a939d1) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:24 am

“Water expands when it freezes – that means it floats. When it melts, the same mass takes up less volume.”

Now think about what happens when there is salt in the water.

imdw (6eb217) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:27 am

What’s the problem here? The opinion is on what I did read. I said so.

If you’re expecting me to explain what should be obvious to you, I’m afraid it won’t be forthcoming.

Dmac (a964d5) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:29 am

When a liberal can’t watch Jon Stewart because it threatens his fragile little world too much, that’s a fine fine day.

Dustin (cf255c) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:54 am

imdw — I appreciate that you made a statement and backed it up with a source, but there are some problems with your source.

—

The density for ice is 0.931 g/cm^3
The density for water is 1.000 g/cm^3

If we think of density as molecules per volume, and agree that the number of molecules remains the same regardless of state, then:

density X volume = a fixed number of molecules.

If density increases (as from ice to liquid), then volume must decrease, i.e. the amount of space needed in a given volume decreases as ice melts.

Here is a science experiment demonstrating empirical evidence of that fact. Note the pipette contains 6.2 ml of ice and when it is melted, it contains 5.6 ml of liquid water (melting was done by hand and took about two minutes, so evaporation would have nominal effect).

The same would hold for saltwater, because ice floats on the oceans and is therefore less dense than ocean-water per equal displacement. As ice melts, its density must increase and the above relationship must hold true.

Oddly the source you cited does not quantify the density of the solution used and the ice appears to be mostly submerged from the picture (roughly 25 units from the liquid-level to the top, and 25 units from the liquid-level to the bottom of the picture, which curiously does not show the bottom of the ice — which appears to extend further!).

Pons Asinorum (b0bc5f) — 12/3/2009 @ 9:58 am

“imdw — I appreciate that you made a statement and backed it up with a source, but there are some problems with your source.”

Why don’t I just cut and paste from the link to make sure that people are understanding it?

“The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.”

You’ve almost got it:

“The same would hold for saltwater, because ice floats on the oceans and is therefore less dense than ocean-water per equal displacement. As ice melts, its density must increase and the above relationship must hold true.”

imdw (e6c812) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:21 am

And the density of Ocean salt water, on the average is 1.029 g/cm3

Thomas (b5d255) — 12/3/2009 @ 10:25 am

#73: Your statement also requires the assumption that the melting ice does not contain any salt. When saltwater freezes, it tends to create packets of salt mixed like veins into the ice, salt that would be released back into the mixture as the ice melted.

The relative density of distilled water compared to seawater (assuming maximum density of 1.4 degrees celsius) is a difference of 2.5% with seawater being more dense. Assuming the entirety of the floating ice pack of the north pole melting, the theoretical difference under those assumptions would be a 2.5% increase in the volume of that ice pack. However, the north pole ice pack constitutes less than 1% of the total amount of water in the oceans. With the heroic assumption that there are no impurities in the ice, the total volume of the ocean would increase by .025%, or one four-hundredth of a percent.

In any case, the on-land ice packs are more significant to ocean levels, although how much of those would be absorbed as groundwater or in newly formed lakes is unclear (ice is heavy and creates depressions in land.

Either way, the fever dreams of an underwater Boston or Rio de Janeiro tend to reinforce the growing view of warmists as chicken littles, but with government grants.

Hadlowe (061332) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:03 am

Apologies, that should be fortieth of a percent.

Hadlowe (061332) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:04 am

^ he smart

Dustin (cf255c) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:07 am

“#73: Your statement also requires the assumption that the melting ice does not contain any salt.”

No just less than the water it is floating on.

“With the heroic assumption that there are no impurities in the ice, the total volume of the ocean would increase by .025%, or one four-hundredth of a percent.”

So indeed it is a rise. The link I sent people to said it could lead to a 4cm sea level rise.

Apparently even that small of an effect must be fought by the ignorance of folks like JD.

imdw (842182) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:13 am

imdw, is that if they melt COMPLETELY? Because that’s absurd. And the major levels of melting and refreezing we’ve seen lately have had negligible effect on sea levels.

Make a hypothesis and see if it comes true, of you’re just screaming that the sky is falling.

Dustin (cf255c) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:17 am

“imdw, is that if they melt COMPLETELY?”

why don’t you read the link?

“Make a hypothesis and see if it comes true, of you’re just screaming that the sky is falling.”

If you read the link you’ll see no screaming or falling sky.

imdw (6606df) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:28 am

Melt it. Freeze it. No matter what you do, the oceans that Barcky stopped from rising are going to rise. Hadlowe and Pons whacked you upside the head with a cluebat, and you just keep on babbling. This one will run as far down the rabbithole as you let it, folks.

JD (a58f1d) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:40 am

That is because the argumentation isn’t really about the topic, JD.

Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 12/3/2009 @ 11:46 am

“That is because the argumentation isn’t really about the topic, JD.”

JD knows that. He was against this before he even knew what it was.

[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]

imdw (b7a66a) — 12/3/2009 @ 12:36 pm

Canadian Issues:
$10 Billion Dollars per Year For a Fraud?
Canadians are interested in results of what is going on about Climategate in Canada! As it has to do with our lives,lifestyle whether or not we are going to be living in a Democracy or under a Dictatorship?
Jim prentice has stated & PM Harper advocates this as well otherwise Prentice wouldn’t be uttering it”Canada will be paying it’s fair share of Carbon Emmissions! To the tune of $10 Billion per year!” Really, we are already $70 Billion in debt thanks to Michael Ignatieff & the Liberals who up’ed the anti to the Canadian debt load on stimulus!
This begs the question where Jim Prentice plans to dig the $10 Billion per year out of? Did somebody say more Tax?
What is so disheartening about that is the fact that now it’s been found that the whole Climate Emission scam has been proven to be Fraudulent as credible Scientests around the world who were previously locked out of putting their work and findings forth by Jones of East Anglia University and the CRU,were pushed out of the picture with thier observations and experiment results on Climate Change found that not only is the earth not heating up in reality it has been cooling since the 1960’s!
How much more fraudulent can this Scientific Data be? The United Nations and the Globalists are using this false Data at Copenhagen, to transfer our wealth to third world countries? Yet Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Prime Minister Stephen Harper feel so generous with Canadian Tax payer dollars that they are willing to toss in $10 Billion per year on the “hot air” that Ban Kai Moon and Pompus PM Gordon Brown and the rest of the Criminal Rogues that are involved in this bogus Carbon Emission Treaty! As the Bible says,”A Fool and his money are soon parted”! To request that PM Harper doesn’t sign the Copenhagen Treaty, causing Canadians to lose their Sovereignty and Freedom email the PM at: pm@pm.gc.ca,Protest Copenhagen Treaty http://www.gopetition.com/online/32485.html

There are four reasons the UN and IMF, Global Elitist Members Re: Ban Kai Moon ( Who has openly expressed his stong desire for Global Governance ), PM Gordon Brown, Bilderberg Member Henry Kissinger, Senior Bilderberg Member David Rockefeller as well as an unprecedented number of Dictators that run various countries who are members of the United Nations this Copenhagen Treaty that was designed to acquire four goals, the least of them being climate improvment or protection as Lord Moncton has stated!
(1.) To de-industrialize Sovereign Countries ( No Jobs keep you dependant on State ) ( 2.) Take your money and assets – Hence, Fraudulent Carbon Emmissions and Carbon Gases for Carbon Credits and Carbon Taxes! (3.) Take away your property (4.) Take away your Sovereignty and Freedom!
Check out what Government is doing behind your back at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Btok (b5ea79) — 12/6/2009 @ 3:35 pm

12/2/2009

Jon Stewart on ClimateGate (Updated)

84 Responses to “Jon Stewart on ClimateGate (Updated)”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out