Global Warming Alarmists Still Pushing Sea Level Hysteria
Politicians, actors, and “climate activists” warn us regularly that meltwater from massive ice sheets in the Antarctic and the Arctic will soon drown our coastal towns and cities, and the process will become “irreversible.”
Graphic photoshopped pictures of New York skyscrapers show water reaching many upper floors. Miami is shown vanishing under the sea. (pictured)
All this, as a result of increased CO2, warming the Earth and melting the ice. All this in order to gain support for their plans to stop burning fossil fuels and ultimately enslave society with wind and solar energy, requiring rationing energy to all.
The fundamental data and facts support none of this hysteria. Looking at Figure 1,[i] we notice in the last 140 years, the oceans have risen only about Nine inches. A rise equal to the thickness of a few pieces of paper a year.
Now compare Figure 1 to Figure 2 and see the close correlation between the rise in ocean level and the increase in known ocean surface temperatures.
When we consider water’s physical properties in Fig 2,[ii], we see the volume of water increases with a temperature rise.
This data proves that the sea level has risen at about the same rate that the oceans have been warming. When we are dealing with immeasurable gigatons of water in the oceans, even a small temperature rise can cause a measurable ocean-level rise.
The incorrect assertion that the melting polar ice is the cause of the ocean-level rise is even contradicted by the UN/IPCC, whose Fifth assessment report stated: “Water volume rises with temperature because of thermal expansion—another primary driver of sea-level rise.”[iii]
There are differing positions on the causes of sea-level rise because estimating the many parameters involved is not an exact science.
There are too many unknowns, including the volume of the Earth’s water, its temperatures, its densities, the influence of the many ocean bottom volcanic and tectonic events, to name a few. The margins of errors in these assumptions result in wild discrepancies.
Can melting sea ice cause ocean levels to rise? “Not so much” is the simple answer. In grade school, we learned 90 percent of an iceberg or any floating ice is below the waterline while only 10 percent is above the water.
This happens because when water starts to freeze, it expands, becoming 10% less dense and floats upon the water that made it up. When the ice melts back into the water, it shrinks by the same 10 percent.
So, when sea ice melts, the 10 percent that was floating above the water combines with the 90 percent under the water, occupying the same original water volume.
You can check this out next time you have a glass of ice and water. Mark the water level on the glass with a grease pencil and then wait till all the ice is melted, and you will find the water level remains at the grease mark line.
- What about the melting of the land glaciers? The Antarctic[v] contains about 90 percent of the world’s ice mass and is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. About 44 percent of that Antarctic ice is in the ice shelves (it’s floating at the coastal edges), mostly in the western regions on the Pacific Ocean. More than 50 percent of the Antarctic sheet is land-based and can be several miles thick. Historical data confirms that there are few days per year where the temperature is above freezing, and then for only a few hours per day and only along the coast. Consequentially little or no continental Antarctic ice ever reaches the oceans. During bright and sunny days, a small amount of surface of the continental and shoreline ice is destroyed by infrared rays from the sun. But this ice does not melt into the water; rather, it sublimates directly into water vapor.
- Sublimation means that the ice goes directly from the solid to the gaseous phase (water vapor) without ever going through the liquid phase.[vi] When the sublimated water vapor reaches the cold Antarctic air, the vast majority of it quickly turns to snow and falls back on the glacier. The winds blow only a tiny amount over the Antarctic ocean. Nearly zero goes into the oceans as water.
- Coastal Antarctic ice, dramatized with films, photos, and articles in newspapers and TV, shows large ice sheets tumbling into the ocean. These dramatic falling cliffs are not caused by global warming. Instead, the melting is occurring at the water level by the warmed Pacific Ocean. Here the water splashes and melts and gouges caverns in the ice, forming large ice shelves or overhangs. This process continues until the weight of the overhang is big enough to cause the overhung ice to break and tumble off. That’s when we get the sensational pictures. So yes, some of this ice will melt into the oceans and will cause some water level rise, but the volume is unmeasurably small.
NASA[vii] published a study on October 30, 2015, saying that Antarctica is accumulating ice at a rate of about 112 billion tons per year. It has already replaced all the ice that melted in the previous several decades.
Another NASA study reports an increase in the rate of Antarctic snow accumulation. Currently, enough continental ice is accumulating to outweigh the losses caused by its shrinking coastal glaciers. Credits: Jay Zwally, Journal of Glaciology.[viii]
Yes, there was substantial glacial melting in Greenland, Alaska, and other northern hemisphere locations, which added some waters to the oceans during the warming of the past several decades.
However, these glaciers tend to melt and then increase in about twenty-year cycles, depending on the local conditions.[ix] A number of these glaciers are now growing at a significant rate, like the famed Jakobshavn glacier in Greenland.[x]
A world scorecard shows which glaciers are melting and which are growing. But the long-term batting average seems to be about half growing and half shrinking.
Besides water temperature, other factors need to be accounted for when we say the ocean level is rising or falling.
At the local level, the ocean can appear to “increase” or “decrease” due to changes in the land caused by land settling, such as we see in downtown Boston, where the landfill of 150 years ago[xii] keeps on settling, giving the appearance that the ocean is rising.[xiii]
At the local level, there’s also the sedimentation[xiv] effect. For example, the sand and soil of the Mississippi valley are continuously eroding and are carried into the streams, then rivers, the Mississippi, and finally to the Gulf of Mexico.
Another significant factor is the movement of the Earth’s tectonic plates. The Earth’s crust floats on top of molten lava and is about eighteen miles thick.
But the crust is not a solid piece. It’s made up of “plates,” which keep floating and moving around. Where, for example, two plates meet, like at the infamous San Andreas fault line, unpleasant things start to happen.
One, they meet head-on, like in India-Nepal-China, where the tectonic plate of the Indian subcontinent crashes into the massive Asian continent. There it meets incredible resistance and voila! Mount Everest and K2, and the other mountains and countryside around keep growing about half an inch per year.
One last item is “the spring back effect.” During the last Ice Age, parts of North America, Europe, and Asia were covered by ice as much as one mile thick or more.
It sucked so much water out of the oceans that it created a land bridge from Asia to North America. The weight of this massive ice crushed and compressed the Earth for tens of thousands of years.
But, like a spring, the land is still recovering from the disappearance of the glacial mass and slowly expanding and springing back up.
While scientists try to figure out if the seas are rising or falling, one or two millimeters per year, they have to sort out for all of these factors. Besides, they also have to contend with the fact that tidal gauges also get banged around by novice boat captains like us.
Fortunately, more reliable satellite data of the last forty years confirms this rise of about one to two millimeters per year before any of these complex adjustments are made. The journal Nature, January 2019 [xvi], did an excellent job discussing these adjustments in detail.
The bottom line is that activists grossly distort the effect of mankind on sea level.
[i] https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion
Thermal Expansion | Global Sea Level – NASA Sea Level …. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion
[ii] https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-specific-volume-weight-d_661.html
[iii] NASA Sea Level Change Portal: Thermal Expansion. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/understanding-sea-level/global-sea-level/thermal-expansion
[v] https://www.answers.com/Q/How_many_days_a_year_is_Antarctica_above_freezing
[vi] 2.2: The States of Matter – Chemistry LibreTexts. https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_Chemistry/Book percent3A_Introductory_Chemistry_Online!_(Young)/02 percent3A_The_Physical_and_Chemical_Properties_of_Matter/2.2 percent3A_The_States_of_Matter
[vii] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
[viii] Study: Mass gains of Antarctic ice sheet greater than …. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses/
[xi] USA Today on March 26, 2019, “….Natural cyclical cooling…”
[xii] https://historyofmassachusetts.org/how-boston-lost-its-hills/
[xiii] Quantifying uncertainties of sandy shoreline change projections as sea level rises, January 10, 019
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37017-4
[xiv] https://www.earthmagazine.org/article/mississippi-delta-drowning
[xv] Morrison’s Island Public Realm and Flood Defence Project. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/arup-s3-lower-lee-frs-ie-wp-static/wp-content/uploads/lee_valley/Morrisons-Island-Appendix-C-Transport-Assessment-Report.pdf
[xvi] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-37017-4
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Allan Shelton
| #
I am quite sure that Alarmists look at a Mercator projection map which shows Greenland bigger than Africa or South America.
“My oh my, all that ice is going to flood the world due to global warming”, the Alarmists shout.
NOW, look at Greenland on a globe. It is so small in reality, that it about the size of Saudi Arabia.
Reply
NecktopPC
| #
First it was too much Greenhouse Gas (aerosols) Emissions – and it was these aerosols (Co2 was their boogeyman) that were causing Global Warming / Climate Change. Now they’re not?
Now it’s too little!
Apparently, what they meant all along was; these Greenhouse Gases (“cooling aerosols”), is what was ‘cooling’ the planet. SMH.
Overall, the planet was about .03 degrees Celsius warmer in 2020 due to fewer cooling aerosols
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/pandemic-lockdowns-warming-effect-1.5898234
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Dr Jay, and Terigi,
You wrote: “This happens because when water starts to freeze, it expands, becoming 10% less dense and floats upon the water that made it up. When the ice melts back into the water, it shrinks by the same 10 percent.
So, when sea ice melts, the 10 percent that was floating above the water combines with the 90 percent under the water, occupying the same original water volume.
You can check this out next time you have a glass of ice and water. Mark the water level on the glass with a grease pencil and then wait till all the ice is melted, and you will find the water level remains at the grease mark line.”
I had read: “I greatly doubt that Aristotle ever tested by experiment whether it be true that two stones, one weighing ten times as much as the other, if allowed to fall, at the same instant, from a height of, say, 100 cubits, would so differ in speed that when the heavier reached the ground, the other would not have fallen more than 10 cubits.” (Salv.: ’Two New Sciences’, Galileo, as translated by Crew and de Salvio, 1914)
to which Simp relied: “His language would seem to indicate that he had tried the experiment, because says: ‘We see the heavier’; now the word ‘see’ shows that he had made the experiment.”
Because I doubted that you had actually done the experiment which you have proposed, I decided, as a good scientist, I should actually do this simple experiment to see if what you proposed would exactly be observed. So, I can now state that in this case you were correct.
But, while I had read what Galileo had Salv. then remark: “But even without further experiment, it is possible to prove clearly, by means of a short and conclusive argument, that a heavier body does not move more rapidly than a lighter on provided both bodies are of the same material and short such as those mentioned by Aristotle.”
The critical important words are (it is possible to prove clearly by means of a short and conclusive argument). Then, after 21 pages (in my book), Galileo had Simp. to state: “The previous experiments, in my opinion, left something to be desired; but now I am fully satisfied.” ‘a short and conclusive argument’??? Hence, I conclude it is this, which Galileo wrote, that has created two wrong ‘popular’ ideas about SCIENCE. First, scientific knowledge can be established by rational argument. Second, established scientific knowledge is the ‘proven’ truth no matter how this ‘knowledge’ has been established.
Now, when the proposed result of your experiment was observed to be correct, I was still uncomfortable with what you wrote. So, I pondered a bit more and eventually asked: What was the purpose of this experiment?
Your article had begun: “Politicians, actors, and “climate activists” warn us regularly that meltwater from massive ice sheets in the Antarctic and the Arctic will soon drown our coastal towns and cities, and the process will become “irreversible.”
The massive ice sheets to which you refer are not those floating on the Arctic Ocean but those upon the surface of Greenland. Glaciers do not float on water. Hence, your experiment had nothing to do with the melting of glaciers relative to a probable increase in the level of oceans.
Allan is correct: one needs to consider the limited areas of Greenland and the Antarctica Continent relative to the much, much greater area of the connected oceans of the Earth.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI readers,
After submitting the previous comment I sew that the volume of ice floating on the Arctic Ocean is not an environmental issue relative to any increase of the oceans level. Your experiment’s result did absolutely proved that this melting ice could never increase the level oceans regardless of the area issue.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply