Remember me
▼ Content

Ice


Ice08-06-2019 00:09
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Question,
If the net quantity of ice in the world (not counting the antarctic) is decreasing but the ice in the antarctic is increasing can anyone tell me the net of the whole system?
It seems to me that under that scenario if antarctica becomes a net melting it will be very bad.
Also, could an increase in net ice in antarctica protect the rest of the world from warming?
08-06-2019 00:24
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
After giving it a little thought, it seems that if the net ice in the world (other than antarctica) is decreasing, that would mean that the rest of the world is warming.
So, wouldn't that warming water wash up on the shores of antarctica and melt the ice there regardless of the quantity of ice in Antarctica.
Does warm water melt ice or does ice cause water to freeze in the case of the temperatures at the ocean/antarctica interface??
08-06-2019 00:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote:
Question,
If the net quantity of ice in the world (not counting the antarctic) is decreasing but the ice in the antarctic is increasing can anyone tell me the net of the whole system?
It seems to me that under that scenario if antarctica becomes a net melting it will be very bad.
Also, could an increase in net ice in antarctica protect the rest of the world from warming?


keepit wrote:
After giving it a little thought, it seems that if the net ice in the world (other than antarctica) is decreasing, that would mean that the rest of the world is warming.
So, wouldn't that warming water wash up on the shores of antarctica and melt the ice there regardless of the quantity of ice in Antarctica.
Does warm water melt ice or does ice cause water to freeze in the case of the temperatures at the ocean/antarctica interface??


Let me fire that back at you. If the net ice mass of both the Greenland Ice Sheet and of Antarctica is increasing, doesn't that tell us that the earth is cooling?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-06-2019 00:38
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Re: antarctic ice.
The net ice of antarctic is increasing because it doesn't get above freezing an precipitation accumulates much faster than sublimation so i don't believe accumulation of ice in antarctica says that the earth is warming.
Re; Greenland. Is the ice there increasing or decreasing? I thought it was decreasing?
08-06-2019 00:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Just looked up greenland avg temp and it is below freezing. Not exactly sure what that says about net ice. I'll keep looking.
08-06-2019 00:55
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: Just looked up greenland avg temp and it is below freezing. Not exactly sure what that says about net ice. I'll keep looking.

There is nothing to be learned about ice from a local temperature average.

There are simple but irrefutable observations that one can make that clearly show ice mass accumulation in both Greenland and Antarctica.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-06-2019 00:57
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Ah, wikipedia. He he.
Wiki says that the greenland ice sheet is decreasing.
There are blogs and opinions to the contrary.
Where is my fake news meter? I seem to have misplaced it.
Edited on 08-06-2019 00:57
08-06-2019 01:04
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
I'll be flumoxed (whatever that means) is there can't be agreement with the antarctic ice accumulation i described.
Edited on 08-06-2019 01:15
RE: enceladus08-06-2019 01:14
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Here's an interesting ice/land interface situation. On enceladus (a moon of Saturn) there is heat coming out of the core because of tidal heating. It melts the ice next to the core. As you get further and further from the core (closer to the ice interior surface) the temperature of the water gets colder and colder because it is farther and farther from the heat source
That means that in the underground oceans of enceladus there is a large variety of temperatures for life to choose from. There are also organic molecules galore in the underground water.
I poses an exciting prospect of life on another world.
08-06-2019 04:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Question,
If the net quantity of ice in the world (not counting the antarctic) is decreasing but the ice in the antarctic is increasing can anyone tell me the net of the whole system?
No. It is not even possible to determine the amount of ice in the Antarctic. All we can do is measure its area every winter (the winter ice extent). We don't know its thickness.
keepit wrote:
It seems to me that under that scenario if antarctica becomes a net melting it will be very bad.
Parts of Antarctica melt every year. It's called 'summer'. It refreezes every winter.
During summer in Antarctica, no noted change in sea level occurs anywhere.
keepit wrote:
Also, could an increase in net ice in antarctica protect the rest of the world from warming?

No.

The ice in Antarctica is there because the earth is round, and the Sun doesn't strike the poles as directly as the equator. In addition, the poles are tilted 23.5 degrees. During the winter, the Sun doesn't rise at all. It gets damn cold.

The ice at the poles doesn't change the temperature of the Earth. The ice at the poles is there BECAUSE of the temperature of the Earth and the uneven heating the Sun provides upon its surface.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 04:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
After giving it a little thought, it seems that if the net ice in the world (other than antarctica) is decreasing, that would mean that the rest of the world is warming.

Not necessarily. It simply may be dry. Antarctica happens to be a very dry desert. Very little snow falls upon large portions of it. Ice can sublimate as well. This is direct conversion from solid to vapor. It can and does happen in dry areas. You can see this effect on aircraft when the ice on the wing is disappearing at temperatures below -30 deg F.
keepit wrote:
So, wouldn't that warming water wash up on the shores of antarctica and melt the ice there regardless of the quantity of ice in Antarctica.

What's warming the water?
keepit wrote:
Does warm water melt ice or does ice cause water to freeze in the case of the temperatures at the ocean/antarctica interface??

What's warming the water?


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 04:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Re: antarctic ice.
The net ice of antarctic is increasing because it doesn't get above freezing an precipitation accumulates much faster than sublimation so i don't believe accumulation of ice in antarctica says that the earth is warming.
Re; Greenland. Is the ice there increasing or decreasing? I thought it was decreasing?


No one knows, but various cores do show increasing ice. There is no massive lake in the center of Greenland. There is no river flowing through the mountain ranges to the sea. The only gap such a river could form in is on the northwest side of the continent.

These cores are made by technicians working for the snow and ice data centers in Boulder, CO, and for various nations around that area (Norway is big into this). They all show the same thing.

If they do show an increase, it doesn't mean an ice age is coming.
If they do show a decrease, it doesn't mean it will all melt or even that any more of it will melt.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-06-2019 04:17
08-06-2019 04:21
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
I'll be flumoxed (whatever that means) is there can't be agreement with the antarctic ice accumulation i described.


It's not possible to measure the total ice in Antarctica. We can measure the area covered every winter, and those records are at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, CO.

Expeditions down there have also taken ice cores, but since Antarctica is almost twice the size of the United States, a few cores here and there don't mean much.

None of it can predict the future. Increasing ice does not mean it will continue to increase. Decreasing ice does not mean it will continue to decrease.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 04:27
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
I can't resist answering your question, "What's warming the water?" with,
"The sun."
08-06-2019 05:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
I can't resist answering your question, "What's warming the water?" with,
"The sun."


The same sunlight only warms the water to the current temperature. Where's the additional energy coming from?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-06-2019 05:17
08-06-2019 05:30
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
If we didn't let the sunlight bounce back out it would get much warmer here.
Look at venus. It has a lot of CO2 and the temp is 800 plus F.
There have been landers there which have measured the temp.
08-06-2019 05:33
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
I can't talk any more right now. I have to go melt some ice in my drink.
Cheers and thank you.
Edited on 08-06-2019 05:34
08-06-2019 07:48
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: If we didn't let the sunlight bounce back out it would get much warmer here.

Did you just use wording to the effect of assigning humanity the power to decide whether to "allow" the earth to have radiance?

keepit wrote: Look at venus. It has a lot of CO2 and the temp is 800 plus F.

Yes. The fact that it has a lot of CO2 is immaterial. What matters is Venus' proximity to the sun and that it has a lot of atmosphere (which only affects the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere).

keepit wrote: There have been landers there which have measured the temp.

You specified that at least one lander has measured "the" temperature. Which temperature? I hope you aren't going to try to tell me that a thermometer measured more than one point at a time.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-06-2019 11:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
If we didn't let the sunlight bounce back out it would get much warmer here.

Reflected sunlight does not warm anything. It was never absorbed in the first place.
keepit wrote:
Look at venus. It has a lot of CO2 and the temp is 800 plus F.

We already looked at Venus (capitalized. Venus is a proper noun). Argument by repetition fallacy.
keepit wrote:
There have been landers there which have measured the temp.

Are you seriously suggesting that three thermometers, each of which landed in a different year, are capable of measuring the temperature of an entire planet with any sensible margin of error??

I guess you not only deny science and logic, you deny mathematics too.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 17:37
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
IBDaMann,
By "we didn't let the sunlight back out" i was referring to more thermal insulation (greenhouse gasses).
08-06-2019 17:41
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
It seems every point of discussion hinges on greenhouse gas and thermal insulators and imperfect SF black body.
I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise.
I always refer to wiki. I guess that is inconvenient
08-06-2019 18:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: It seems every point of discussion hinges on greenhouse gas ...

... hinges on your belief in "greenhouse gas" and in its magickal superpowers.

keepit wrote: ... and thermal insulators ...

... and in your denial of Stefan-Boltzmann ...

keepit wrote: ... and imperfect SF black body.

They are just "black bodies." There's no need say "imperfect" because no bodies in nature are "perfect." All bodies are just ordinary black bodies.

And Stefan-Boltzmann is just one model in Black Body science. I recommend a quick perusal of Black Body Science and Planck's Law from Politiplex

keepit wrote: I always refer to wiki.

That shall be your undoing. You would be better served by just making up something and saving yourself the time and effort of underlining your favorite passages in Wikipedia.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-06-2019 19:24
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
I used wiki for many years.
Also, the Philips Astronomy Encyclopedia.
Edited on 08-06-2019 19:26
08-06-2019 19:50
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: I used wiki for many years.

... which would explain your indoctrination into science denialism.

keepit wrote: Also, the Philips Astronomy Encyclopedia.

What does Phillips Astronomy say about Global Warming?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
08-06-2019 20:05
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
It talks about greenhouse effect saying the earth would be much cooler but for greenhouse gasses and mentions their effect on venus.
Surprisingly my McGraw Hill encyclopedia of Physics doesn't have the StefanBoltzmann law in it.
Really, IBDaMann, how would a person ignore all the various references to greenhouse effect. I've got 100 popular science and hard core science books on cosmology, astrophysics, and climate change (7). I couldn't tell you how many authors profess greenhouse gasses and climate change.
08-06-2019 20:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann,
By "we didn't let the sunlight back out" i was referring to more thermal insulation (greenhouse gasses).


Thermal insulation works both ways, dude. What you don't let out can't come in.

You are still trying to evade the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 20:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
It seems every point of discussion hinges on greenhouse gas and thermal insulators and imperfect SF black body.

Space is a thermal insulator. Earth is surrounded by space. How do you suppose sunlight arrives to heat the Earth?
keepit wrote:
I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise.
I always refer to wiki. I guess that is inconvenient

It IS rather pointless.


The Parrot Killer
08-06-2019 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
It talks about greenhouse effect saying the earth would be much cooler but for greenhouse gasses and mentions their effect on venus.

Then it's wrong. It is denying the same laws of physics that you are.
keepit wrote:
Surprisingly my McGraw Hill encyclopedia of Physics doesn't have the StefanBoltzmann law in it.
Then I submit it's a lousy encyclopedia.
keepit wrote:
Really, IBDaMann, how would a person ignore all the various references to greenhouse effect.

Because science does not use consensus. The ONLY authoritative reference to a theory of science is the theory itself.
keepit wrote:
I've got 100 popular science and hard core science books on cosmology, astrophysics, and climate change (7). I couldn't tell you how many authors profess greenhouse gasses and climate change.

Sooner or later I knew you would turn to the argument by consensus. It's part of the Church of Global Warming scripture. After all, you are defending the High Priests of the Church of Global Warming, the so-called climate 'scientist'.

Consensus is not used in science.
It does not change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It does not make it go away.
It does not change the laws of thermodynamics. It does not make them go away.
It does not change statistical mathematics. It does not make it go away.

No book, encyclopedia, scientist, group of scientists, government organization, university, society, academy, web page, voting bloc, newspaper, magazine, license, degree, or law changes what these theories are.

Nobody votes on a theory of science. You are simply denying them based on the argument of popularity fallacy. This is a type of the argument of the stone fallacy.

You cannot vote these theories out of existence.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 02:17
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: It talks about greenhouse effect saying the earth would be much cooler but for greenhouse gasses and mentions their effect on venus.

Well then, if it doesn't have any sentimental value then you should discard it. It's obviously crap.

keepit wrote: Surprisingly my McGraw Hill encyclopedia of Physics doesn't have the StefanBoltzmann law in it.

No book will contain everything. The internet doesn't contain everything.

Fortunately, you can go to Politiplex and get a thorough understanding of Stefan-Boltzmann

keepit wrote: Really, IBDaMann, how would a person ignore all the various references to greenhouse effect.

By not worshipping that religion, by sticking with science. Science has already addressed Greenhouse Effect and it is only possible as a religious belief. Only someone who is scientifically illiterate or a flat out science denier would hold that faith.

Death Valley will sit under a kilometer of ice before I become a science denier.

keepit wrote: I've got 100 popular science and hard core science books on cosmology, astrophysics, and climate change (7).

... and yet you have no science.

keepit wrote: I couldn't tell you how many authors profess greenhouse gasses and climate change.

I'm not a Christian despite the unending list of authors who profess Jesus Christ to be their savior.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-06-2019 02:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
IBDaMann,
Just saying that in a general way we are the product of what we've read and heard etc. unless we've done experiments on all the experiments that have been done. There are the thought experiments though.
I really don't understand where you and ITN get your interpretations and applications of principles.
I've never done experiments.
Edited on 09-06-2019 02:47
09-06-2019 02:49
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
Let me just ask, "Where do you get your science?"
09-06-2019 03:56
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4612)
keepit wrote: Let me just ask, "Where do you get your science?"

That reminds me of a conversation I had with a Christian decades ago. He asked me "If you don't accept the Bible, where do you get your morality."

I don't make falsifiable models of nature. I test them using the scientific method.

Ergo, I get my science from those people who make falsifiable models of nature.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
09-06-2019 03:59
keepit
★★★☆☆
(489)
OK. No problem.
09-06-2019 20:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
IBDaMann,
Just saying that in a general way we are the product of what we've read and heard etc. unless we've done experiments on all the experiments that have been done. There are the thought experiments though.
I really don't understand where you and ITN get your interpretations and applications of principles.
I've never done experiments.


The equations themselves.

You have already done experiments. Even as a little kid you experimented on the effects of gravity upon you and upon objects around you. I assume you have played with magnets as some point. That 'play' is experiments.

You do not need to do experiments on these equations. You can if you want to, but the purpose of an experiment is to try to break a theory of science. Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions use consensus and supporting evidence. The only other place consensus is used is politics.


The Parrot Killer
09-06-2019 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9226)
keepit wrote:
Let me just ask, "Where do you get your science?"


Science is a set of falsifiable theories. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics that you ignore are part of that set of theories. So is the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You do not need to know the history of these theories for them to be in force. The fact that they exist is enough.

You are trying to evade the these theories by changing them.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate Ice:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Plant Growth and Ice Cores617-09-2019 22:45
ice melting223-06-2019 19:52
Temperatures leap 40 degrees above normal as the Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June mel318-06-2019 06:22
Siberian ice melting!012-06-2019 21:32
Mike Pompeo: Melting Arctic Ice Presents New Trade Opportunities028-05-2019 15:33
▲ 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