the ice approaching Australia
Dick Meister
fresh water.
BradGuth
> At twice the size of Manhattan, they should real this mother in and make
> fresh water.
Icebergs tend not to move in any direction other than mother nature
intends. If it's headed towards Australia, then that's a win-win.
~ BG
Davoud
> At twice the size of Manhattan, they should real this mother in and make
> fresh water.
Reely?
Davoud
--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.
usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm
Quadibloc
> Dick Meister wrote:
> > At twice the size of Manhattan, they should real this mother in and make
> > fresh water.
>
> Reely?
Anyway, here is a link to the news story:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/11/tech-iceberg-australia.html
I wish there was an economic way to direct it to the Australian
coastline before it melts too much, because Australia _is_ short of
fresh water, so, indeed, it would do some good. But I think it will
just go where the ocean currents push it until it meets its ultimate
fate.
John Savard
Nightcrawler
"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message news:9b337ffe-c974-4511...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Anyway, here is a link to the news story:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/12/11/tech-iceberg-australia.html
I wish there was an economic way to direct it to the Australian
coastline before it melts too much, because Australia _is_ short of
fresh water, so, indeed, it would do some good. But I think it will
just go where the ocean currents push it until it meets its ultimate
fate.
*************
This wasn't an uncommon practice in the past. Though, I don't believe in
the southern hemisphere. That particular chunk of ice is a bit large for
such an endeavor, but there are plenty of other smaller chunks to pick
from on their way to New Zealand. This year will be the heaviest flow
in a long time.
BradGuth
> fresh water.
Currently we’re only thawing out at a modest km3/day, and supposedly
we got at least 33e6 km3 of glacial slow-ice to go. By some other
measurement we've got <36e6 km3.
On Dec 12, 9:51 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> How come this chunk of ice has been hanging around for ten years?
>
> http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/09/huge-iceberg-heading-toward-australi...
Firstly, in addition to those obvious glacial melts and numerous other
run-offs between the relatively warm crust and all of that glacial
slow-ice, it’s the increased cubic volumes of such seasonal icebergs
that’s also on the increase.
Icebergs tend to last because deep inside that berg it's still -16C
(if not –20C), and ice is actually a darn good thermal insulator if
it's thick enough, as well as the local ocean temperature surrounding
that ice is not likely much above 5C which doesn't give a whole lot of
thermal differential, especially as the coldest ocean thermal layer of
perhaps >1C is what remains within the first 10 cm of that ice.
My math could be somewhat off, although it supposedly takes 131 TW.h
in order to thaw a billion tonne volume of -16 C ice if that process
includes bringing it up to +17 C. Obviously the outer surface
temperature of that ice is merely frosty and near 0 C, whereas it
takes 93e12 W.h / 1e12 kg or 93 W.h/kg just to thaw that surface ice
into 0.6C fluid water. So, what's the local area sea temperature and
the surrounding air temp?
In the mean time, I'll recheck my swag as to ice thawing or water
warming energy requirements.
1 BTU = 1 degree F per pound (same as 1.055e3 J, or 0.293 W.h)
There's 2.2046e12 pounds per billion tonnes of ice, and therefore it’s
taking 2.2046e12 BTUs per degree(F)
Per metric tonne = 2.2046e12 BTUs = 646.1e6 KW.h
-16C to +17C represents a thermal difference of 66F
2.2046e12 x 66 = 145.5 e12 BTU = 42.642e9 KW.h or 42.642 TW.h
“In North America, a standard ton of refrigeration is 12,000 BTU/h
(3517 W). This is approximately the power required to melt one short
ton (2000 lb) of ice at 0 °C (32 °F) in 24 hours, thus representing
the delivery of 1 ton of ice per day.” (same as 3876.79 W.h x 24 =
93.043 KW.h per metric tonne)
An average thaw rate for this century of perhaps 2.2 km3/day or 2e9
tonnes/day x 93.043 KW.h = 186 TW.h/day (excluding those pesky factors
of ice insulating itself and the 33°C or 66° F thermal differential of
an iceberg core temperature of –16C becoming thermally equalized at
the average ocean temperature of +17C)
Problem is, it isn’t so simple because ice insulates ice. In fact 10+
meters of ice is providing terrific insulation, and 100+ meters of ice
is obviously a whole lot better reason as to why large icebergs tend
to last so long. Secondly, it seems we still have no objective
science pertaining to raw ice in the vacuum of space as fully solar
illuminated, such as deployed within the Apollo passive environment of
our Earth-moon L1(Selene L1) is still a total mystery. So, other than
going by theory, it seems we can’t even reasonably extrapolate with
certainty as to what the raw solar influx, plus whatever vacuum or
pressure has to do with the melting of any large block or significant
volume of ice. In other words, there’s simply no objective science as
to how long a given km3 of ice will last, especially if the vast bulk
of its interior is –20C (-25C not uncommon).
For something as critically important and life essential as water and
ice, it seems we’re still kind of flying blind, as well as being
global warmed to death, traumatized by greater storm intensities and
getting Noah flooded out at the same time, not to mention the whole
volume of Earth continually modulated by the 2e20 N/s of tidal force
from holding onto our moon(Selene). Perhaps our being impacted by an
extremely large asteroid would be a change for the better, because our
long-term terrestrial environment situation isn’t exactly looking
good.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Dick Meister
takes 4.16 joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C. total mass of ice
divided by 10 to get the water equivalent.
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:97ceed1c-b85b-4fec...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / �Guth Usenet�
TBerk
> "Quadibloc" <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in messagenews:9b337ffe-c974-4511...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anyway, here is a link to the news story:
>
http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/12/09/australia.iceberg/index.html
I got to thinking they might put some large sail/parachute type
devices on this thing and influence it's course- but I also realize
it's daydreaming without many facts to make it practical.
Another idea would be to carve off sizable chunks, ring them with poly
sheeting and pump out the melting 'fresh' water.
If we (people, humans, etc) put Military Budget money into the problem
then we can a get a lot done.
berk
LdB
>
> If we (people, humans, etc) put Military Budget money into the problem
> then we can a get a lot done.
>
>
>
> berk
There was a sign on the wall of our YMCA a few years ago. It read
something like this.
We could adequately feed and educate, give decent housing and quality
medical care to the entire population of the Earth for one year with
the money spent on the military in one day.
There's something seriously wrong with our species.
LdB
wsne...@hotmail.com
> TBerk wrote:
>
> > If we (people, humans, etc) put Military Budget money into the problem
> > then we can a get a lot done.
>
> > berk
>
> There was a sign on the wall of our YMCA a few years ago. It read
> something like this.
>
> We could adequately feed and educate, give decent housing and quality
> medical care to the entire population of the Earth for one year with
> the money spent on the military in one day.
Maybe everyone should join the military. :-)
Seriously, you need to show your work. My BOTEC showed a level of
only $5000 per year per person, which wouldn't go very far in most
places.
> There's something seriously wrong with our species.
No, just the left-wing part of it.
BradGuth
more common unit of kg calories (Kcal)?
There's 1e15 grams per tonne, thus 1e15 * 4.2 = 4.2e15 J/t for the 1C
thermal rise.
This gram cal method gives us 1.167 TW.h per billion tonnes.
The 33C rise to average ocean temperature = 38.5 TW.h
However, going either direction, ice still insulates ice.
Perhaps if the Antarctic interior desert of 2" average precipitation/
year were to increase by two fold, say contributing up to 4"/year,
might actually do the trick if all 100% of the existing snow and ice
covered Antarctica gets nailed by this 4" of annual precipitation as
turning into glacial slow-ice.
http://www.scar.org/information/statistics/
12.1e15 m2 x .1 m = 1.21 e15 m3 = 1.21e6 km3
At best, count on 10% of that added precipitation becoming glacial
slow-ice, therefore with a doubling of snowfall we'll get perhaps a
net gain of 0.1e6 km3 per year, or 1e6 km3/decade, and a whopping 10e6
km3/century.
Along the coast of Antarctica it gets upwards of 8" precipitation, and
therefore only a small percentage increase (<50%) will do quite
nicely.
Trick is, how to make it consistently snow at near twice the annual
amount in Antarctica, and perhaps the same goes for Greenland, because
that would build glacier slow-ice faster than we’re losing it.
~ BG
On Dec 13, 12:37 pm, "Dick Meister" <dic...@spamalot.com> wrote:
> Maybe a rough calculation could be done better using gram calories. It
> takes 4.16 joules to raise 1 gram of water 1 degree C. total mass of ice
> divided by 10 to get the water equivalent.
>
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ice, it seems we’re still kind of flying blind, as well as our being
> global warmed to death, traumatized by greater storm intensities and
> getting Noah flooded out at the same time, not to mention the whole
> volume of Earth continually modulated by the 2e20 N/s of tidal force
> from holding onto our moon(Selene). Perhaps our being impacted by an
> extremely large asteroid would be a change for the better, because our
> long-term terrestrial environment situation isn’t exactly looking
> good.
>
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
Jax
>
> There was a sign on the wall of our YMCA a few years ago. It read
> something like this.
>
> We could adequately feed and educate, give decent housing and quality
> medical care to the entire population of the Earth for one year with
> the money spent on the military in one day.
>
> There's something seriously wrong with our species.
>
> LdB
It makes a nice slogan, but you might want to do a reality check on
the numbers before believing it.
A) Total US defense spending is $2.7 billion a day.
B) Total expenditures for the poorest 20% of the US households for
just food, housing, and health care is $13,000 annually. If that can
provide decent and adequate care, multiply $13k times the total
households in the US of 112,000,000.
C) compare A to B.
Davoud
> > There was a sign on the wall of our YMCA a few years ago. It read
> > something like this.
> >
> > We could adequately feed and educate, give decent housing and quality
> > medical care to the entire population of the Earth for one year with
> > the money spent on the military in one day.
> >
> > There's something seriously wrong with our species.
> >
> > LdB
Jax:
> It makes a nice slogan, but you might want to do a reality check on
> the numbers before believing it.
Agreed. Your numbers check out with me.
> A) Total US defense spending is $2.7 billion a day.
>
> B) Total expenditures for the poorest 20% of the US households for
> just food, housing, and health care is $13,000 annually. If that can
> provide decent and adequate care, multiply $13k times the total
> households in the US of 112,000,000.
Just one little point. $13,000 per annum for food, housing, and health
care is nowhere near decent and adequate. That's why these numbers
represent the "poorest," not the "adequatest" of American households.
> C) compare A to B.
Davoud
Chris.B
> Just one little point. $13,000 per annum for food, housing, and health
> care is nowhere near decent and adequate. That's why these numbers
> represent the "poorest," not the "adequatest" of American households.
>
> > C) compare A to B.
The maths ignores the fact that both expenditures are destructive of
human rights and humanity and both are but a vanishingly small
fraction of the real costs. The truly vast, but hidden, costs are in
repairing the damage they both cause. Do you not suppose the very
poorest American homes are but an impossible dream to aspire to for
literally billions across our small globe? Physical and mental ill
health, drug and alcohol abuse, crime, terrorism, religion, corruption
and global depression are but a few of the effects of our dehumanising
behaviour towards each other. War for economic advantage is no further
forward than competing troupes of apes in the rapidly depleting
jungles. To see political leaders strutting their empty arrogance is
no different from male pheasants fighting for domination amidst the
passing traffic after being driven from cover. They are all equally
blinkered to the true reality all around them. After all the time
which has passed since we moved on from the jungle ourselves there is
still no peace and no cohesive force which binds us as human beings.
The only thing we have in common is our endless, psychopathic greed
and total inability to share our occasional good fortune. One has only
to glance across the posts here to see humanity laid bare. The
pompous, the mentally ill, the aggressive and the truly ignorant
jostle for positions on a rapidly sinking platform. Chest to puffed
out chest you copy the exact behaviours of apes and pheasants alike.
Yet all of you are blind to your surroundings. The clubhouse is almost
burnt down but you still play the young bucks. Locking horns through
instincts which no longer have any useful purpose or survival value.
No post may lie unchallenged by some tatty, young, anonymous pheasant
displaying his rain-sodden winter plumage just as the food runs out
and the woods are clear felled...
Jax
> On Dec 15, 3:25 am, Davoud <s...@sky.net> wrote:
>
> > Just one little point. $13,000 per annum for food, housing, and health
> > care is nowhere near decent and adequate. That's why these numbers
> > represent the "poorest," not the "adequatest" of American households.
>
> > > C) compare A to B.
>
> The maths ignores the fact that both expenditures are destructive of
> human rights and humanity and both are but a vanishingly small
> fraction of the real costs. The truly vast, but hidden, costs are in
snip
> No post may lie unchallenged by some tatty, young, anonymous pheasant
> displaying his rain-sodden winter plumage just as the food runs out
> and the woods are clear felled...
And that doesn't address the real need which is stiffer penalties for
parole violators.....And world peace.
LdB
There are other countries on the Earth besides the USA that spend
money on military.
By the way the sign on the wall of the YMCA I was referring to was a
picture of a bearded guy from around the first century AD. The actual
wall is in a distant place in the universe. A very strange place that
isn't called USA.
Even if the numbers don't add up there is still something seriously
wrong with the species.
LdB
Dick Meister
No... FOOD calories are KJ's
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d948d485-09c3-4b63...@v15g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.scar.org/information/statistics/
~ BG
> ~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / �Guth Usenet�
Jax
> Jax wrote:
> > It makes a nice slogan, but you might want to do a reality check on
> > the numbers before believing it.
>
> > A) Total US defense spending is $2.7 billion a day.
>
> > B) Total expenditures for the poorest 20% of the US households for
> > just food, housing, and health care is $13,000 annually. If that can
> > provide decent and adequate care, multiply $13k times the total
> > households in the US of 112,000,000.
>
> > C) compare A to B
>
> There are other countries on the Earth besides the USA that spend
> money on military.
>
> By the way the sign on the wall of the YMCA I was referring to was a
> picture of a bearded guy from around the first century AD. The actual
> wall is in a distant place in the universe. A very strange place that
> isn't called USA.
>
> Even if the numbers don't add up there is still something seriously
> wrong with the species.
>
> LdB
The US military spending is 41.5% of total military expenditures in
the world. If the numbers aren't reasonable here with that large
percentage of the total, they aren't reasonable worldwide.
I don't recall a bearded guy from the first century making the
statement on the YMCA sign. Perhaps you have a reference. What is
seriously wrong with some ot the species on this planet is their
willingness to believe anything on a sign without using their God
given intelligence to verify it's truthfulness.
wsne...@hotmail.com
> Jax wrote:
> > On Dec 14, 11:40 am, LdB <L...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> There was a sign on the wall of our YMCA a few years ago. It read
> >> something like this.
>
> >> We could adequately feed and educate, give decent housing and quality
> >> medical care to the entire population of the Earth for one year with
> >> the money spent on the military in one day.
>
> >> There's something seriously wrong with our species.
>
> >> LdB
>
> > It makes a nice slogan, but you might want to do a reality check on
> > the numbers before believing it.
>
> > A) Total US defense spending is $2.7 billion a day.
>
> > B) Total expenditures for the poorest 20% of the US households for
> > just food, housing, and health care is $13,000 annually. If that can
> > provide decent and adequate care, multiply $13k times the total
> > households in the US of 112,000,000.
>
> > C) compare A to B
>
> There are other countries on the Earth besides the USA that spend
> money on military.
For the sake of argument, let's say that total worldwide military
spending was $1.5 x 10^12 per year ($2 trillion/yr) and that the total
population of the Earth is 6 x 10^9 (6 billion.) That means that
every person on Earth gets only $250 per year, or less than $1 per
day. If only those in abject poverty, say the poorest 5%, were to
get the money that would have been spent on arms then each of those
people would get $5000, which is much more generous, but not exactly
what the sign had claimed.
> By the way the sign on the wall of the YMCA I was referring to was a
> picture of a bearded guy from around the first century AD. The actual
> wall is in a distant place in the universe. A very strange place that
> isn't called USA.
That might explain the hyperbole that was printed on the sign. It
might have been government propaganda.
> Even if the numbers don't add up there is still something seriously
> wrong with the species.
Twain said, "I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because
he was disappointed in the monkey."
Chris.B
> Twain said, "I believe that our Heavenly Father invented man because
> he was disappointed in the monkey."
And women invented gods because they were disappointed in men.
And stone age men turned the tables by inventing a wife-beating god.
And, not to be outdone, the Roman Paedophilic Church invented the
child-beating god.
And all the most disappointing men, amongst us, lived happily ever
after in a blood-bath of their own making.
And the Wise Monkey said, "I'm rather disappointed in this new lot."
And the Wise Irishman quipped; "I wouldn't have started from
here." ;-)
wsne...@hotmail.com
You don't understand human nature very well.
BradGuth
> No... FOOD calories are KJ's
99.999% of humans don't know the cal/kcal difference, nor can they be
taught (mostly because they simply don’t care as long as their carbon
footprint can be larger than anyone else).
Ice still insulates ice at the coefficient of 2.4 W/m/K
R factor per meter of -20C ice = 1 / 2.4 = .417
10 meters = R 4.17 (0.24 W.h) per degree K
100 meters = R41.7 (2.4 mw.h) per degree K
However, a given volume of -20C(253K) ice that's surrounded by 10
meters of ice, in a controlled environment of 0.9C(274 K), is going to
last even longer than the 21 K differential might suggest.
The Antarctic surrounding ocean that's in contact with such thick ice
is near 273 K, is why those terrific ice shelves should last next to
forever unless that surrounding water is warming up and/or that ice is
getting pushed and pulled out to sea.
~ BG
Chris.B
Are you posting in the wrong thread again?
I see Brad is promising a white Christmas.
It'll make a change from blood red.
Dy'all think the American people have been aspiring to Coca-Santa's
obesity ever since?
Shouldn't we bring an action in the Hague against Coca-cola for sugar
bombing civilians?
Or is it just Cola-teral damage? :-)
LdB
> The US military spending is 41.5% of total military expenditures in
> the world.
Why? Except to prove that there is something seriously wrong with the
species.
It has been my experience that those who are the most distrustful of
others are the ones who can not be trusted.
>
> I don't recall a bearded guy from the first century making the
> statement on the YMCA sign. Perhaps you have a reference. What is
> seriously wrong with some ot the species on this planet is their
> willingness to believe anything on a sign without using their God
> given intelligence to verify it's truthfulness.
Words on a sign are just words. They don't have to be absolutely true
to be meaningful. Would it make you happy if maybe was added to Do
Onto Others ?
The species as acquired some degree of intelligence. Perhaps they will
one day acquire the wisdom to use it.
LdB
Jax
You quoted facts to support your conclusion on a science group. You
should expect someone here to point out when your facts can be proven
to be blatantly incorrect. As I originally said, it makes a nice
slogan, but you might want to do a reality check on the numbers before
believing it - or trying to get others to believe it - or using as a
basis for any conclusions.
Dick Meister
1 food cal = 4.18 KJ
Anyway, much of the ice is underwater. 9/10 of the whole sheet. That means
direct contact with subtropical waters potentially. Not sure of the
thermocline rate but the difference between temps at the base and the
surface are significant. You have faster melting in say the top 200 meters
than the bottom 400 meters or so if you assume a surface thickness of 100 -
200 meters. Collapse becomes a big player.
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3ae3e64-4b5f-4882...@d9g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
Chris.B
much faster rate of melting than that in still water. Any intermediate
temperature gradient between the ice and water boundary would be
stripped away by water movement. Thereby revealing a new ice surface
exposed to the average water temperature unchilled by its proximity to
the ice surface. The same occurs with common building materials. The
slightest air movement strips away the still air boundary. Greatly
increasing thermal conductivity through the building material. Any
porosity or rough texture of the ice would allow closer contact over a
much increased area between the moving water and the ice surface.
BradGuth
Where's the objective science as to that of a km3 worth of glacial
slow-ice thawing out, that which has a 50% volumetric core temp of
-20C to start with?
~ BG
Chris.B
>
> Where's the objective science as to that of a km3 worth of glacial
> slow-ice thawing out, that which has a 50% volumetric core temp of
> -20C to start with?
Soot from all those American Coal burning power stations?
There is a rumour doing the rounds that Google (Earth) had to use a
layer of Titanium White in Photo Shop on Antarctica just to spruce it
up to the public's expectations. ;-)