Remember me
▼ Content

Arctic waters not freezing



Page 3 of 20<12345>>>
06-12-2016 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.


I'd be interested in expanding along the horizon.

I'd be very interested in hosting a party on that thing and capturing a group shot via zoom aerial photography.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-12-2016 19:13
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:...57% of people did NOT vote for Bill Clinton in 1992, and he was still president.


Between 1949 & early 1970's, Mao murdered, tortured & starved to death, 100 million of his BROTHERS, SISTERS, CHILDREN & BABIES, & he was dictator of communist china(always small letters).

It is good that thc yearns for & displays his wonder about efforts thrusting away from tyrannies, while he, himself, is buried under the tragic pile of death, mayhem & disease of communist china dictatorship(always small letters).
Edited on 07-12-2016 19:29
08-12-2016 04:54
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ugh, liberals. litesong, Mao didn't have 100 million siblings/children.
08-12-2016 05:02
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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).


Presently, T-rump's lost popular vote total is 3 TIMES more (& growing) than the other four presidents altogether who lost the popular vote(THE VOTE in democratic countries).
08-12-2016 06:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
jwoodward48 wrote: litesong, Mao didn't have 100 million siblings/children.


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.
Edited on 08-12-2016 06:26
08-12-2016 15:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.

Mao was a bad dude. He executed many, just on a whim.





.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-12-2016 19:30
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Wayward Woodward? I like that one, thanks.
09-12-2016 21:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Wayward Woodward? I like that one, thanks.


Wayward Woodward whoops & wonders whether it's willful or whimsical, tho wrong its wont.
09-12-2016 21:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.

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

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-12-2016 04:22
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
Edited on 10-12-2016 04:24
12-12-2016 18:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-12-2016 05:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.


If you pay what you owe me, I may break even.
14-12-2016 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
litesong wrote:If you pay what you owe me, I may break even.

That's pure wisdom.

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

Yes! If I pay you what I owe you, you break even! How did you know that?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2016 02:27
ajml617
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
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
14-12-2016 07:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
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


The first question to ask is, "Is there global warming?".


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2016 09:27
ajml617
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
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?
14-12-2016 10:31
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.
14-12-2016 13:07
ajml617
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
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
14-12-2016 17:05
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
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.


The heat sink effect is not valid over thousands of years. Over decades and even a century or more the oceans will absorb heat energy with no big effect but over more than a thousand and you are into the inevitable effect that more heat energy will have. To increase temperature.

The sea level rose very abruptly at the end of the ice age as all that ice melted quickly because it was all at the same altitude and as the climate warmed it caused the ice to retreat and thus stop being so reflective of heat from the sun thus warming the place up again.

The thing with the ice that has survived this is that it is all (well almost all) in places that are not at low altitude and are extremely safe from melting. The easy to melt stuff has done so.

Thermal expansion of the oceans was talked about as being the great threat but after the IPCC got some mechanical engineers to look at it the threat went away as it will cause 7cm of expansion per degree increase over 100 years. Assuming a constant rate of increase.

The IPCC et al then went back to talking about ice melting. Well, OK, it wont but let's stick with their figures....

What impact do you think the worste case scenario of a 1m sea level rise will have?

In places like FLorida the locals will, over the course of this century, be mainatining and building sea defences. The people who own sea front property and the local governments do this all the time. The additional work required will not be significant when compared to the amount spent on traffic lights.

In Bangladesh the monsoon floods deposit at least 2cm of mud all over the place every year. There will be more Bangladesh in 2100 than now.


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?


Again, the ice that melted did so over a few centuries. There has been no vast melting for the last 7 thousand years at least.

Edited on 14-12-2016 17:08
14-12-2016 19:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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

I'm no expert on climate science - posters climate scientist and Abraham3 are two of the real scientists on this site - but I do have some scientific training and have a particular interest in the topic.

As Tim has mentioned, the ice age ended relatively abruptly in geological terms, with the global average temperature rising by about 5 degrees C over a period of 6,000 years or so. During this period, the vast ice sheets covering northern America, Europe and Asia melted to leave just the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, raising the sea level by about 120 metres. The rise in temperature was probably triggered by cyclical changes in the Earth's orbit and then driven primarily by positive feedback from the greenhouse effect as CO2 levels rose from about 180 ppm to 280 ppm.

After reaching a maximum about 8,000 years ago, the Earth's temperature (also CO2 concentration, ice cover and sea levels) had remained almost stable, cooling by less than one degree over this time. Within the last 200 years, though, as human emissions have driven CO2 levels above 400 ppm, the Earth has warmed by about a degree, the ice is melting again, and the sea level is rising again.

What does the future hold? Well, complete melting of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets would raise the sea level by about 70 metres. While this almost certainly will happen if we continue to increase CO2 levels, it will take a long time - probably well over a millennium. Even if the Earth were to remain at its current temperature, paleoclimate evidence suggests that the sea level would eventually stabilise at about 8 metres higher than today.

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. The latter contribution is, however, quite uncertain since it is difficult to predict just how rapidly the ice sheets will melt. It may be less, or it could well be more. It depends a lot on the precise behaviour of the glaciers.
Edited on 14-12-2016 19:34
14-12-2016 19:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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?

No.

There is no Global Warming.

The polar ice caps are increasing in ice.

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?

That might be the case in a billion years or so. The planet will be baked by an expanding sun at that point.

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

There's no Global Warming.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2016 19:33
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.
14-12-2016 19:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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.

Everyone keeps two sets of books: one for the investors and one for the IRS.

Don't worry, my book has you breaking even.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
14-12-2016 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
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?


There is no such thing as 'scientific' evidence. There is evidence, or there is not.
Do you have evidence that anything going on in the Arctic is due to global warming? Or are you just assuming that not only is the Arctic actually melting, but that it is due to global warming?


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2016 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9635)
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.


The Parrot Killer
14-12-2016 22:26
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
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.

What? Did you even read what I wrote? The fact that ice reflects solar radiation better than water is simply that: a fact. WTF has it got to do with religion?
14-12-2016 22:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
Surface Detail wrote: I'm no expert on climate science

You just aren't big on science.

There is no "climate" science any more than there is "Christian" science.

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

Did you write that with a straight face.

Climate Scientist is a complete fraud, just a low-level gopher who dreams of being smart one day and so lives an on-line secret fantasy pretending to be a "scientist." Unfortunately she would need some highschool refresher courses just to keep from having to drop out of a basic science conversation.

Surface Detail sings her praises because they are both deeply passionate about the same WACKY Global Warming religion.

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

You have nothing to offer in the way of science except some wonderful violations of physics. Your interest is simply your religious devotion and nothing more.

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.

Both poles have been increasing in ice mass. This is why, as far as anyone knows, the oceans could be lowering right now. If the oceans are either rising or lowering, it isn't enough to be noticeable and we don't have the ability to measure to any usable accuracy.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-12-2016 01:11
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"i b da no sigh-ants mann" wrote: a complete fraud...

"i b da no sigh-ants mann" ain't no fraud. It readily admits it has no education in science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, so it wood'na be biased by eddy-kashun.
15-12-2016 01:17
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/unprecedented-arctic-warmth-in-2016-triggers-massive-decline-in-sea-ice-snow
Findings from the report:
Warmer air temperature: Average annual air temperature over land areas was the highest in the observational record, representing a 6.3 degree Fahrenheit (3.5 degree Celsius) increase since 1900.

Record low snow cover: Spring snow cover set a record low in the North American Arctic, where the May snow cover extent fell below 1.5 million square miles (4 million square kilometers) for the first time since satellite observations began in 1967.

Smaller Greenland ice sheet: The Greenland ice sheet continued to lose mass in 2016, as it has since 2002 when satellite-based measurement began. The start of melting on the Greenland ice sheet was the second earliest in the 37-year record of observations, close to the record set in 2012.

Record low sea ice: The Arctic sea ice minimum extent from mid-October 2016 to late November 2016 was the lowest since the satellite record began in 1979 and 28 percent less than the average for 1981-2010 in October. Arctic ice is thinning, with multi-year ice now comprising 22 percent of the ice cover as compared to 78 percent for the more fragile first-year ice. By comparison, multi-year ice made up 45 percent of ice cover in 1985.

Above-average Arctic Ocean temperature: Sea surface temperature in August 2016 was 9 degrees Fahrenheit (5 degrees Celsius) above the average for 1982-2010 in the Barents and Chukchi seas and off the east and west coasts of Greenland.
16-12-2016 03:12
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
17-12-2016 03:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Here is a comparison showing the great power of the Present High Arctic Berserker:
From early August to late September, 2016 showed itself in a very poor second place(& that only for a few days) for Arctic sea ice loss extent, compared to the year 2012, partially due to no favorable winds that flushed Arctic sea ice to the south out of the Arctic Ocean.... which occurred strongly for the year 2012. Anyhow, as late as September 27, 2016, the year had 1.4 million extra square kilometers of ice, compared to 2012, despite the earlier beginnings of the High Arctic Berserker. But then the High Arctic Berserker began extended very high temperature escalations, even higher than decades long "normal" partings from "average" High Arctic temperatures. Well inside 3 weeks, 2012 lost its 1.4 million KM2 pad. In 1 month plus a few days, 2012 had 2/3rds of million extra KM2 of ice than 2016. In another 3 weeks, 2016 did its now famous power melt of Arctic sea ice, extending its sea ice loss over 2012 to 1.1+ MILLION KM2. Presently, with the 2016 High Arctic Berserker between ice melting battles, 2016 still leads 2012 in sea ice loss by 1/3 million KM2.
17-12-2016 20:22
Saviaje
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
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!
17-12-2016 22:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
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!

Stupid idea. Basing taxation on unfalsifiable religious dogma is never a good plan.

Christianity was here long before the Global Warming religion. We should first implement a Rapture tax on all the sins of the flesh that give power to the antichrist before we implement a tax on all the carbon sins that gives power to the "Climate" goddess.

Global Warming should wait in line like everyone else.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
17-12-2016 22:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4950)
litesong wrote:Here is a comparison showing the great power of the Present High Arctic Berserker:




Dude, I totally saw the video on the news. The High Arctic Berserker is gearing up to clear the snow and ice from the Arctic so he can get his sleigh out the door and bring presents to the world.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-12-2016 06:58
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Compilation of lots of AGW informed Arctic warmings & feedbacks:
http://news.xfoor.com/2016/12/17/sea-ice-loss-a-hallmark-of-2016-arctic-report-card-httpnews-xfoor-comblogsea-ice-loss-a-hallmark-of-2016-arctic-report-card/
18-12-2016 07:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.


It appears that only fights among kkk(always small letters) members will reduce the rapid increase in kkk membership due to T-rumpisms.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/12/kkk-member-says-drunken-argument-over-klan-leadership-preceded-stabbing/
19-12-2016 00:30
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.


The High Arctic Berserker HAS positively reached 100+ straight days over the "average" temperature. If NOT for one questionable day, the High Arctic Berserker would be ~ 115(+?) straight days over the average. Presently, at 8+degC over average, the High Arctic Berserker sets sail for 150(+?) straight days over the average in a strong steady blow toward the higher numbers.
Edited on 19-12-2016 00:33
20-12-2016 16:34
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tho the High Arctic Berserker is "idling" now, the HAB has helped 2016 HA temperature to presently be between 9 & 10 degC over "average" & 2016 Arctic sea ice is dramatically low, 1.9 million KM2 LESS than the average sea ice extent of the 1980's. Because of the present 2016 Arctic sea ice low, the maximum 2017 sea ice extent has a fair chance to remain below 14 million KM2, which has ONLY occurred in the years 2015 & 2016 of previous satellite Arctic data.
21-12-2016 21:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.
22-12-2016 03:31
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
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.


Oh, oh. The High Arctic Berserker is takin' off...again. It's now 13 degC over the High Arctic average.
Edited on 22-12-2016 03:32
Page 3 of 20<12345>>>





Join the debate Arctic waters not freezing:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Year Long, Arctic Climate Change Study... How 'Green'?121-09-2019 03:46
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Mike Pompeo: Melting Arctic Ice Presents New Trade Opportunities028-05-2019 15:33
2019 Arctic sea ice wintertime extent is seventh lowest005-05-2019 13:50
Arctic's melting permafrost will cost nearly $70 trillion, study finds101-05-2019 21:12
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact