Arctic waters not freezing

litesong wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

litesong wrote: Wonder if it was a lucky photo.

Whatever it was, I bet it makes a nice poster, suitable for framing.

With a high resolution camera, a framed image may have been slightly better as a vertical composition (taken further to the right, but not losing the cliff vertical cracks). The horizontal composition tho, is best for computer display.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:...57% of people did NOT vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, and he was still president.

litesong wrote: Hillary Clinton got 64,827,442 votes (48.2%), earning her 2,333,240(almost 2 & one third million) more votes (& growing) than Trump. 54% of people did NOT vote for T-rump.

T-rump released a tweet with a lie, claiming that several million votes in the election were cast "illegally." The independent fact-checking site Politifact rated this a lie and gave their "pants on fire" rating to the claim.

Four other presidents have lost the popular vote.
1824: John Quincy Adams lost the popular vote by more than 38,000 votes
1876: Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by more than 250,000 votes
1888: Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote by more than 90,000 votes
2000: George W. Bush lost the popular vote by more than 540,000 votes

T-rump's lost popular vote total is 2.5+ TIMES more (& growing) than the other four presidents altogether who lost the popular vote(THE VOTE in democratic countries).

jwoodward48 wrote: litesong, Mao didn't have 100 million siblings/children.

litesong wrote:Other people in some countries have more comradery, relationship, Brotherhood, & Sisterhood of Personkind than wayward woodward48. At least wayward woodward48 made no argument that mao(always small letters) DID murder, torture & starve to death 100 million Chinese Citizens, even if wayward woodward48 does NOT consider them BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN & BABIES.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wayward Woodward? I like that one, thanks.

litesong wrote:

jwoodward48 wrote:
Wayward Woodward? I like that one, thanks.

Wayward Woodward whoops & wonders whether it's willful or whimsical, tho wrong its wont.

IBdaMann wrote:

litesong wrote:
Wayward Woodward whoops & wonders whether it's willful or whimsical, tho wrong its wont.

Poetic. Were I jwoodward48 I would slap that into my signature post haste.

litesong wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

litesong wrote:
Wayward Woodward whoops & wonders whether it's willful or whimsical, tho wrong its wont.

Poetic. Were I jwoodward48 I would slap that into my signature post haste.

My royalties roll, run, ride, & rise.

IBdaMann wrote:

litesong wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

litesong wrote:
Wayward Woodward whoops & wonders whether it's willful or whimsical, tho wrong its wont.

Poetic. Were I jwoodward48 I would slap that into my signature post haste.

My royalties roll, run, ride, & rise.

May you be amply rewarded.

litesong wrote:If you pay what you owe me, I may break even.

ajml617 wrote:
I am new to the global warming debate. I have a question for the experts. Is the polar ice currently acting like a heat sink, sucking up much of the global warming, and turning ice into water? What will happen when all polar ice is melted, and stops acting like a heat sink and stops taking the sharp edge off of global warming? Will global warming then cause much more rapid impacts on the the rest of the globe?

ajml617

ajml617 wrote:
I am new to the global warming debate. I have a question for the experts. Is the polar ice currently acting like a heat sink, sucking up much of the global warming, and turning ice into water? What will happen when all polar ice is melted, and stops acting like a heat sink and stops taking the sharp edge off of global warming? Will global warming then cause much more rapid impacts on the the rest of the globe?

ajml617

ajml617 wrote:
Surface Detail,

Thanks for your expert comments.

Is it relevant to look at a wider picture than I first suggested? Since the last ice age 11,000 years ago, sea levels have risen more than 100m, about 1.2m per century on average.

There is debate on whether sea levels will rise from 0.1m to 1.5m in the next century. Some experts who have long been studying this claim that because we have been running out of ice to melt lately, it is only possible for sea levels to rise between 0.1 and and 0.2m in the next century. That sounds plausible, although if sea temperatures start to markedly rise, and the sea thermally expands, it might add up to more sea level rise than 0.2m.

If we think long term, the earth has been melting a large amount of ice per century, enough to raise sea levels by 1.2m per century. Could the ice age ice existing 11,000 years ago be considered to have been a "huge heat sink resource" which has lasted 11,000 years, but is now near exhausted?

Has this heat sink resource been keeping temperatures from rising rapidly for 11,000 years, but as the resource expires, in terms of the past 11,000 years, the expected increase in global temperatures in the next century might be at a much faster rate, in part because of contribution from loss of heat sink resource?

As you point out, the reflective effect of ice has to a degree dampened down heat gain, so with both the loss of an 11,000 year lasting heat sink resource, as well as progresive loss of reflecting value of ice, the expected heat gain in the environment in the next hundred years will surely significantly exceed what has occurred on average in the past 11,000 years. Likely this will impact Eco systems more than the average of the past 11,000 years, something we need to think about.

I know that many project that much faster global warming will occur in the next century than typical over the past 11,000 years. I am just wondering if the projections have taken adequate allowance for the loss in perhaps the next century of the last of the 11,000 year lasting "ice age ice heat sink resource"? During the last ice age, ice was miles thick in extensive areas. It must have absorbed/ offset a lot of heat gain per century to melt off ice miles deep over the past 11,000 years. Perhaps the average heat sink benefit per century of ice over the past 11,000 years can be calculated? Would it be significant?

ajml617 wrote:
Surface Detail,

Thanks for your expert comments.

Is it relevant to look at a wider picture than I first suggested? Since the last ice age 11,000 years ago, sea levels have risen more than 100m, about 1.2m per century on average.

There is debate on whether sea levels will rise from 0.1m to 1.5m in the next century. Some experts who have long been studying this claim that because we have been running out of ice to melt lately, it is only possible for sea levels to rise between 0.1 and and 0.2m in the next century. That sounds plausible, although if sea temperatures start to markedly rise, and the sea thermally expands, it might add up to more sea level rise than 0.2m.

If we think long term, the earth has been melting a large amount of ice per century, enough to raise sea levels by 1.2m per century. Could the ice age ice existing 11,000 years ago be considered to have been a "huge heat sink resource" which has lasted 11,000 years, but is now near exhausted?

Has this heat sink resource been keeping temperatures from rising rapidly for 11,000 years, but as the resource expires, in terms of the past 11,000 years, the expected increase in global temperatures in the next century might be at a much faster rate, in part because of contribution from loss of heat sink resource?

As you point out, the reflective effect of ice has to a degree dampened down heat gain, so with both the loss of an 11,000 year lasting heat sink resource, as well as progresive loss of reflecting value of ice, the expected heat gain in the environment in the next hundred years will surely significantly exceed what has occurred on average in the past 11,000 years. Likely this will impact Eco systems more than the average of the past 11,000 years, something we need to think about.

I know that many project that much faster global warming will occur in the next century than typical over the past 11,000 years. I am just wondering if the projections have taken adequate allowance for the loss in perhaps the next century of the last of the 11,000 year lasting "ice age ice heat sink resource"? During the last ice age, ice was miles thick in extensive areas. It must have absorbed/ offset a lot of heat gain per century to melt off ice miles deep over the past 11,000 years. Perhaps the average heat sink benefit per century of ice over the past 11,000 years can be calculated? Would it be significant?

ajml617

ajml617 wrote: I am new to the global warming debate. I have a question for the experts. Is the polar ice currently acting like a heat sink, sucking up much of the global warming, and turning ice into water?

ajml617 wrote: What will happen when all polar ice is melted, and stops acting like a heat sink and stops taking the sharp edge off of global warming?

ajml617 wrote: Will global warming then cause much more rapid impacts on the the rest of the globe? ajml617

"i b da no sigh-ants mann" wrote:

litesong wrote:If you pay what you owe me, I may break even.

I owe you $0. You have paid me $0.

litesong wrote:

"i b da no sigh-ants mann" wrote:

litesong wrote:If you pay what you owe me, I may break even.

I owe you $0. You have paid me $0.

Ah, you keep two sets of books.... one for the fake sigh-ants.... one for stealing intellectual rights.

ajml617 wrote:
OK, "is there global warming.?".... I understand it is not disputed that Arctic ice fields have reduced/ melted considerably I recent years. Do you have any suggestions what might be causing that? Or do you have scientific evidence that the ice fields are not reducing?

Surface Detail wrote:

ajml617 wrote:
I am new to the global warming debate. I have a question for the experts. Is the polar ice currently acting like a heat sink, sucking up much of the global warming, and turning ice into water? What will happen when all polar ice is melted, and stops acting like a heat sink and stops taking the sharp edge off of global warming? Will global warming then cause much more rapid impacts on the the rest of the globe?

ajml617

That's a very reasonable question, given the high latent heat of fusion of ice. However, although the Arctic sea ice covers a relatively large area (varying between about 6 million square kilometres in summer and about 15 square kilometres in winter), it is no more than a few metres thick. Hence the heat required to melt it all is relatively insignificant compared to, for example, the heat that goes into warming the oceans.

Nevertheless, the Arctic sea ice does have a big effect on the Earth's radiation balance for another reason: its reflectivity. Ice reflects sunlight much more effectively than water, so the presence of the ice helps to cool the Earth in this way. As the ice melts, more solar radiation is absorbed by the open water, thus amplifying the warming effect. This is an example of a positive feedback effect: the more heat absorbed, the less ice; the less ice, the more heat absorbed.

In summary, because of its reflectivity, the presence of Arctic ice does act as a brake on warming that is becoming steadily less effective as it melts. This is a continuous process, though, rather than a step change.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

ajml617 wrote:
I am new to the global warming debate. I have a question for the experts. Is the polar ice currently acting like a heat sink, sucking up much of the global warming, and turning ice into water? What will happen when all polar ice is melted, and stops acting like a heat sink and stops taking the sharp edge off of global warming? Will global warming then cause much more rapid impacts on the the rest of the globe?

ajml617

That's a very reasonable question, given the high latent heat of fusion of ice. However, although the Arctic sea ice covers a relatively large area (varying between about 6 million square kilometres in summer and about 15 square kilometres in winter), it is no more than a few metres thick. Hence the heat required to melt it all is relatively insignificant compared to, for example, the heat that goes into warming the oceans.

Nevertheless, the Arctic sea ice does have a big effect on the Earth's radiation balance for another reason: its reflectivity. Ice reflects sunlight much more effectively than water, so the presence of the ice helps to cool the Earth in this way. As the ice melts, more solar radiation is absorbed by the open water, thus amplifying the warming effect. This is an example of a positive feedback effect: the more heat absorbed, the less ice; the less ice, the more heat absorbed.

In summary, because of its reflectivity, the presence of Arctic ice does act as a brake on warming that is becoming steadily less effective as it melts. This is a continuous process, though, rather than a step change.

Circular argument. This is a statement based on faith in a religion.

Surface Detail wrote: I'm no expert on climate science

Surface Detail wrote:- posters climate scientist and Abraham3 are two of the real scientists on this site

Surface Detail wrote: - but I do have some scientific training and have a particular interest in the topic.

Surface Detail wrote: In the more immediate future, current estimates are that the sea level will be about 0.8 metres higher by the end of the century, with about half of that coming from thermal expansion of sea water and the other half from melting ice.

"i b da no sigh-ants mann" wrote: a complete fraud...

Saviaje wrote:
It's not every day that a tax geek is asked to deliver a talk of a lifetime. I had that amazing opportunity a few weeks ago when I delivered a TEDx Talk on Climate Change, with a dose of tax policy, innovation, and direct democracy. I can't thank the wonderful people at TEDxBeaconStreet enough for helping me curate an idea TED style. Very excited to officially share my TEDx Talk: http://bit.ly/2h2oTZw Please send me your thoughts. Let's fix climate change with some grassroots activism!

litesong wrote:Here is a comparison showing the great power of the Present High Arctic Berserker:

litesong wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:.... polls are off, just like Hillary's.

Yeah, the polls couldn't get the right numbers on the kkk(always small letters) membership, which was expanding quickly with T-rump speech fertilizer. T-rump supporters had a gathering...... & kkk(always small letters) showed up. They got along OK..... 'cept fer many who couldn't figure which group to sit with.

litesong wrote:
If NOT for 1 day that questionably may have touched the average High Arctic temperature line, the High Arctic Berserker NOT only would be 100 straight days over the present High Arctic average, but would be 110 days over the High Arctic average temperature.
Anyone say, 150+ days is in sight? I will say the Present High Arctic Berserker has 150+ days in sight.

litesong wrote: Tho the High Arctic Berserker is "idling" now, the HAB has helped 2016 HA temperature to presently be between 9 & 10 degC over "average".....

litesong wrote:

litesong wrote: Tho the High Arctic Berserker is "idling" now, the HAB has helped 2016 HA temperature to presently be between 9 & 10 degC over "average".....

The HAB is now 10+ degC over average.