Re: newbie question:
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:ui3f14h269sla4k0r...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:16:09 GMT, deb...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote:
>>
>>>On 29 Apr 2008 01:11:23 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>deb...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote in news:481540ab.30227832
>>>>@news.dslextreme.com:
>>>>
>>>>> Plenty hot today here, around 103.
>>>>
>>>>Snowing at teh house. It's almost May for crying out loud.
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>Dan
>>>>
>>>>CNC Videos - <http://tinyurl.com/yzdt6d>
>>>
>>>Proves Cliff's global warming theory, you will probably still have
>>>snow in July.
>>>Daveb
>>
>> Why not?
>> Warmer = less stable climate.
>
>So warmth makes it colder?
Warmer = less stable climate.
That can bring isolated cold at unusual times too.
>CO2 is truly a miracle gas. It's responsible for cold weather, dry
>spells, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, melting glaciers, increased
>ice cover, higher seas, lower seas, warmer seas, colder seas and of
>course all heat waves in the last 100 years.
Your current weather in Chicago is not at all unusual for
Chicago for this time of year.
>
>That's why nobody calls it "Global Warming" anymore.
BS.
>The new all purpose
>term is "Climate Change". That way any natural disaster or weather
>anomaly can be blamed on anthropogenic climate change.
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070425164935.htm
"A collapse there could raise sea levels worldwide by a catastrophic 20 feet."
Good point, eh?
--
Cliff
Whata Fool
A collapse of what, dummy?
How much ice could be suspended in mid air, which is
probably the only way it could collapse from warmer temperatures.
Almost all ice not sitting on solid ground is floating,
so the most likely way that any major collapse will happen is
from volcanos, earthquakes, or asteroid impacts.
Why are you suggesting any collapse could happen from
warming temperatures, are you selling carbon credits?
Dan
Land-bound glacial ice.
> How much ice could be suspended in mid air,
None.
> which is
> probably the only way it could collapse from warmer temperatures.
Not true.
> Almost all ice not sitting on solid ground is floating,
> so the most likely way that any major collapse will happen is
> from volcanos, earthquakes, or asteroid impacts.
Not true.
> Why are you suggesting any collapse could happen from
> warming temperatures, are you selling carbon credits?
There are masses of ice on both Greenland and the Antarctic, both land
masses, so the ice is floating neither in mid-air nor on the ocean. The
estimate is that the ice, if liquified, would raise worldwide sea levels
about 20 feet. I'm not sure if that includes the small effect of those
two land masses rising because the ice cap was removed.
Is THAT clear enough?
Dan
DaveB
Are you related to Cliff?
Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss books
Daveb
Cliff
That was a direct quote from Dan's cite.
Check out the link. Clearly you did not, any more
than you gave it any thought at all before venting
winger spew.
The Ross Sea ice blocks the flow of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
Think of the angle of repose. Think of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
starting to flow down into the sea even faster minus that ice dam.
Much of it is also sitting on the sea bed ... that portion is NOT
floating. The height above sea level of the ice is well above
where it would be (due to its thickness) if it were floating.
http://www.global-greenhouse-warming.com/west-antarctic-ice-sheet.html
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:uhmg14dnfhgiar34u...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 30 Apr 2008 00:44:33 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>>>news:ui3f14h269sla4k0r...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:16:09 GMT, deb...@dslextreme.com (DaveB)
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 29 Apr 2008 01:11:23 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>deb...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote in news:481540ab.30227832
>>>>>>@news.dslextreme.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Plenty hot today here, around 103.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Snowing at teh house. It's almost May for crying out loud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Dan
>>>>>>
>>>>>>CNC Videos - <http://tinyurl.com/yzdt6d>
>>>>>
>>>>>Proves Cliff's global warming theory, you will probably still have
>>>>>snow in July.
>>>>>Daveb
>>>>
>>>> Why not?
>>>> Warmer = less stable climate.
>>>
>>>So warmth makes it colder?
>>
>> Warmer = less stable climate.
>
>Nonsense.
More warm air flowing to the poles to release heat
in the spring would clearly force cold polar air south in places.
Where, exactly, is weather.
Just one example.
>> That can bring isolated cold at unusual times too.
>
>You keep saying that yet have no explanations as to how warmth makes it
>colder.
What part of "global warming" is unclear?
The parts about the ice in the Arctic melting? The parts
about it getting warmer? The parts about the glaciers
melting?
>>>CO2 is truly a miracle gas. It's responsible for cold weather, dry
>>>spells, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, melting glaciers,
>>>increased ice cover, higher seas, lower seas, warmer seas, colder seas
>>>and of course all heat waves in the last 100 years.
>>
>> Your current weather in Chicago is not at all unusual for
>> Chicago for this time of year.
>
><Sigh> Wrong again - http://mi.nws.noaa.gov/view/prodsByState.php?
>state=IL&prodtype=public#RERLOT
>
>[000
>SXUS73 KLOT 300643
>RERLOT
>
>RECORD EVENT REPORT
>NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
>140 AM CDT WED APR 30 2008
>
>...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE...
>
> A RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE OF 31 DEGREES WAS TIED AT CHICAGO-OHARE
>YESTERDAY. THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF 31 SET IN 1958.
Tied.
>
>$$
>
>HALBACH
>
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>
>
>000
>SXUS73 KLOT 300643 RRA
>RERLOT
>
>RECORD EVENT REPORT
>NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
>143 AM CDT WED APR 30 2008
>
>...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM SNOWFALL SET AT ROCKFORD...
>
> A RECORD SNOWFALL OF A TRACE WAS SET AT ROCKFORD YESTERDAY.
>THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF TRACE SET IN 1996.
>
>$$
>
>HALBACH
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>
>
>000
>SXUS73 KLOT 291106
>RERLOT
>
>RECORD EVENT REPORT
>NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
>605 AM CDT TUE APR 29 2008
>
>...RECORD LOW TEMPERATURE TIED AT CHICAGO...
>
>AT 602 AM CDT THE TEMPERATURE AT CHICAGO`S OHARE INTERNATIONAL
>AIRPORT DROPPED TO 31 DEGREES. THIS TIES THE PREVIOUS RECORD LOW
>TEMPERATURE FOR THE DATE ORIGINALLY SET BACK IN 1958. THIS IS THE
>PRELIMINARY LOW FOR THE DATE...SINCE IT IS POSSIBLE THE TEMPERATURE
>MAY FALL ANOTHER DEGREE.
>
>$$
>
>IZZI
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>-------
>
>
>000
>SXUS73 KLOT 290638
>RERLOT
>
>RECORD EVENT REPORT
>NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
>137 AM CDT TUE APR 29 2008
>
>...RECORD DAILY MAXIMUM SNOWFALL SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE...
>
> A RECORD SNOWFALL OF A TRACE WAS SET AT CHICAGO-OHARE YESTERDAY.
>THIS TIES THE OLD RECORD OF A TRACE SET IN 1950 AND 1961.
>
>$$
>
>HALBACH
>]
>
>Etc...
>
>>
>>>
>>>That's why nobody calls it "Global Warming" anymore.
>>
>> BS.
>
>Go to Google news and search the past month using both terms. "Climate
>Change" has more hits. Now go back several years and do the same search
>on the same month long period.
Even if true, immaterial.
>Why the shift in rhetoric?
>
>>
>>>The new all purpose
>>>term is "Climate Change". That way any natural disaster or weather
>>>anomaly can be blamed on anthropogenic climate change.
>>>
>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070425164935.htm
>>
>> "A collapse there could raise sea levels worldwide by a catastrophic
>> 20 feet."
>>
>> Good point, eh?
>
>Not nearly as good as the point that it appears to have happened many
>times in the past. Long before anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
>
>Ruh Roh.
But we know the cause this time & it's fast. And just getting
started up that curve.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Wingers missed out when it came to science classes.
Among other things.
--
Cliff
Whata Fool
Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
of that ice to zero C.
Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
years to melt all the ice.
There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
Whata Fool
>There are masses of ice on both Greenland and the Antarctic, both land
>masses, so the ice is floating neither in mid-air nor on the ocean. The
>estimate is that the ice, if liquified, would raise worldwide sea levels
>about 20 feet. I'm not sure if that includes the small effect of those
>two land masses rising because the ice cap was removed.
>
>Is THAT clear enough?
>
>Dan
Dan, why don't you buy one of those small propane hand torches,
and get a 100 pound block of ice, and sit down and melt it.
Better get somebody to bring you food and water, it might
take a while.
Cliff
It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
a very good thermal conductor.
Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>years to melt all the ice.
Very clearly then the North polar ice cap has not melted any, right?
> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
I see you've not done any calculations.
How long does it take for an icecube to melt in a beer or
in the fridge?
--
Cliff
Cliff
[
Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter (some give the current
actual figure as 2.4 Watts per square meter) ... an average 24X7 world wide ...
Air at 50 degrees C & one atmosphere has a density of 1.09 (Kg/m3)
and a specific heat of 1.40.
A one kilometer high column of air (one meter square) would have a
mass of 1,400 Kg.
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
But we have a spot of luck here ... the atmosphere is much
deeper than one kilometer (though the density declines with
altitude) and the soil, ice & water can also remove a bit of the
added energy ... while warming up.
Feel free to check my calculation .. I may have missed a decimal
point or something <g>.
All about that added "1.5 watts per square meter" ..... it does add up.
BTW, It takes ~336,103 watt seconds to melt one Kg of ice ... so
some of the heat is going there ... and will not be once the ice is melted.
after that, it only takes about 1,000 watt seconds to raise a Kg of
water one degree C ..
]
HTH
--
Cliff
Dan
No. Just a person who actually trained in sciences and reads science
stuff regularly.
> Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss books
Perhaps you should consider getting a broader base of material, and
material that is a little more current, in your library...
> Daveb
Dan
Dan
Well, there is more energy available to melt the ice than just the air
temperature, which can itself get up considerably higher than 10C during
the summer...
Consider, for example, a chunk of ice breaking off into the surrounding
ocean (called an "ice berg." You may have seen one of these in that
great science film "Titanic."), absorbing all the Kcals from the
significantly denser ocean water!
Those who do not understand science should not show off their ignorance...
Dan
Dan
Dan
Thanks. I'm MUCH too lazy and busy to do their own damned calculations
for them...
Dan
Wolf 253
Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> deb...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote in news:481540ab.30227832
> >>>>>>>> @news.dslextreme.com:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Plenty hot today here, around 103.
> >>>>>>>> Snowing at teh house. It's almost May for crying out loud.
> >>>>>>>>
Global climate change is measured in trends over long periods of time.
Not anomalous weather that happens in one week.
FYI
They were throwing spitwads at each other and reading playboys hidden inside their textbooks.
--
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/30/bushs-magic-wand-and-its-legacy-of-low-expectations/
Dan
"...READING Playboys..." was it! That explains a lot of the responses here!
Dan
Cliff
It was only partial as far as it went. The surface area of the earth is
~ 5.1 * 10^14 square meters so (using the low 1.5 watts per square meter
figure) that's ~ 2.4 *10^19 kilowatt seconds which is enough extra energy
per year to melt ~ 7.2*10^13 Kg of ice (just to melt .... not heat it to zero C
in the first place, if needed).
Now convert that to cubic miles of water or something ... and use the
probably better figure of 2.4 Watts per square meter ....
>Dan
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss books
>
>Perhaps you should consider getting a broader base of material, and
>material that is a little more current, in your library...
Good point <G>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> >Are you related to Cliff?
>> >Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss books
>> >Daveb
>>
>> Wingers missed out when it came to science classes.
>> Among other things.
>>
>
>They were throwing spitwads at each other and reading playboys hidden inside their textbooks.
Probably in "shop" classes.
I recall seeing exactly such.
--
Cliff
Whata Fool
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:48:07 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>>in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>>of that ice to zero C.
>
> It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
>a very good thermal conductor.
If it is not a good conductor, then it is a good insulator?
> Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
> I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
I have no idea what kind of calculations you have done that
the Billions spent on research hasn't explained.
>> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>>Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>>years to melt all the ice.
>
> Very clearly then the North polar ice cap has not melted any, right?
There has been more and more ocean circulation in the last
20,000 years as sea level has risen and the land bridge between Alaska
and Asia has been submerged more and more.
And there is evidence of some geothermal in the Arctic Ocean,
can anybody say that Iceland is the _only_ hot spot.
>> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>>Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>>needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
>
> I see you've not done any calculations.
I have, and I included the latent heat of fusion, have you?
> How long does it take for an icecube to melt in a beer or
>in the fridge?
Too small a sample. I do know that in the winter of '62-63,
the sidewalks in Lorain, Ohio were covered with packed snow and ice
from the first week of December until May.
Water will melt ice a lot faster than air, and the Arctic ice
always melts, and other factors besides temperature affect buildup
of winter ice. When the sea surface is calm and smooth and it is
cold, a thin layer of ice results, and if it coincidentally snows a lot
at that time, ice can build up fast.
So there has to be variations depending on calm seas, cold air,
and snowfall. Note that snowfall is the big factor here, not warm
air, if there is no snowfall, there is no replacement of ice that
always melts or sublimates.
The suggestion that it is "Global Warming" is so adolescent it
is imbecilic, and the people calling it a simple case of a couple of
degrees of warmer temperatures are doing science a lot of harm.
Whata Fool
Cliff, read the response I just wrote, a lot more is involved
than warm air.
You can't do the calculation on a kilogram and then extrapolate
that to a large thick ice mass. Area of surface is a big factor,
and warm water is a much bigger factor than warm air.
When the mile thick ice sheet slide down from Canada across
Ohio, Indiana and Illinois 20 or 30 thousand years ago it must
have take a couple of thousand years to melt it even though the
air was warmer at the lower latitude.
And the melting created the Ohio River, the volume is huge in
a thick ice sheet, and there is no comparison between Arctic sea ice
and the ice sheet on Greenland or Antarctica.
Also, Greenland probably gets magnitudes more snow than most
of the Arctic Ocean, just a few meter hill can cause a lot more snow,
if you could check the stats on Shaker Heights, Ohio and compare them
to Cleveland proper there is a big difference in snowfall, Cleveland
is closer to Lake Erie, but the land rises a couple of dozen meters
in Shaker Heights, and that often doubles the snowfall.
I would suggest the height of the ice sheet on Greenland is one
of the factors that sustains the ice, and the melting and calving of
the edge of the ice sheet is a continuous thing, caused by the increase
in ice load and glacier flow of the entire mass outward, the thickness
of the ice becomes a factor of it's mass and density, more ice will
flow faster, regulating the thickness.
Another self regulating mechanism of nature.
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>> in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>> of that ice to zero C.
>>
>> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>> Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>> years to melt all the ice.
>>
>> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>> Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>> needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
>
>Well, there is more energy available to melt the ice than just the air
>temperature, which can itself get up considerably higher than 10C during
>the summer...
And it is called "Global Warming Plus" what?
If it gets above 10C in summer, and below -10C in winter,
that sounds kinda normal.
>Consider, for example, a chunk of ice breaking off into the surrounding
>ocean (called an "ice berg." You may have seen one of these in that
>great science film "Titanic."), absorbing all the Kcals from the
>significantly denser ocean water!
>
>Those who do not understand science should not show off their ignorance...
>
>Dan
Exactly, so why do you claim what you do, the ice on Greenland
depends on snowfall, and at the height of the top of the ice, it snows
a lot.
How can a few nuts think they are smart all of a sudden, claim
warming when there is cooling, and then deny there is cooling?
It kind of puts their grants in jeopardy.
Wolf 253
I was in shop class.
I made a little aluminum cannon :)
--
http://www.eurekamontananews.com/2008/04/dog-cruelty-eureka-montana.html
Wolf 253
Well they couldnt get away with wanking in class.
--
http://www.eurekamontananews.com/2008/04/dog-cruelty-eureka-montana.html
Dan
> definitive answer given. So far we've had a global temperature rise of 6
> degrees Celsius over 12,000 years time and yet much of the ice persists
> from the last ice age.
He failed paleontology.
> The land bound ice covers about 3-1/2% of the Earths surface and thus can
> only absorb a proportional amount of the total energy warming the surface
> of the Earth.
He failed physics and chemistry.
> Consider the temperature of the ice. It's averages around
> -15 degrees not zero. Also there is the matter of elevation and local
> temperature. Antarctica has an average elevation of around 2400-2500
> meters IIRC, so the temperature will be around 16 degrees colder than at
> sea level (Google "lapse rate"). Central Greenland averages around -30
> degrees and Antarctica around -50. There is simply no way that
> anthropogenic CO2 can raise temperatures high enough to warm those areas
> to the melting point of the ice that lives there.
He failed current events and geology, along with meteorology and
climatology.
> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to raise
> seas by 20 feet.
He failed geology and climatology.
> Even if the temperature were to rise an additional 6
> degrees. Not enough ice exists at lower altitudes and in warmer areas to
> raise the seas by that depth. Hint: the easy to melt ice from the last
> ice age has mostly melted already.
He failed paleontology.
> Adding 6 or even 10 degrees (way over
> the wildest predictions) will only melt a bit more and not nearly enough
> to raise seas by the twenty foot mark in question.
After failing so many science subjects, it is easy to see why he became
a Republican. Faith-based science is an oxymoron. I'll leave the
description of D Murphy to the reader.
Dan
jon_banquer
Okay. I'll take a stab at it:
Good machinist, decent person, capable of letting others have a
different opinion, never uses Tom Brewer, Joe788 or Cliff Huprich Nazi
propaganda tactics, has good taste in food, knows CADCAM systems need
work, is too reliant on Microsoft crap like MS Word rather than a
first rate text editor to create and edit G code programs, needs to
understand that monocoque chassis are the way to go and that there is
no reason they shouldn't be used and be almost as affordable as
triangulated tube frame. Should have cut Cliff Huprich off a long time
ago but must be bored and wants the amusement.
Was that the description of D Murphy that you expected?
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:f45j141nnlka9hp1v...@4ax.com:
>That should be easy to check. Even if it gets colder in some spots
>globally the average would be higher, right? Let's take a look:
>
><http://prisonplanet.com/images/march2008/210308graph2.jpg>
There are no clues what that is nor where it's from and it's scale
is pretty meaningless in this context.
Global warming is a long-term trend, not day by day at point A.
A bit of digging finds that they are trying to blame a La Nina
event for some possible surface cooling.
Not that they noticed that during La Nina events cold deep
ocean waters get mixed wth surface waters .... so, overall,
the net effect on the planet is still a waming one.
BTW, Even that chart shows warmer summers each year and
some warmer winters.
Find the real source of the data & chart, not some winger-fictions
& lies.
>Ooops. It got colder this winter.
What a shock. It has a habit of doing that in winter. Any ideas
from the wingers & anti-science wingers as to why it gets
colder in winter? Gays, lesbians, no bibles in schools, free
speech, paying down the national debts, not giving enough welfare
to the rich, jailing repubs, .... something like that must cause "god's"
curse, right?
>Which is what I thought based on the
>weather. You can't seem to focus and you seem to have read some utter
>fuckwittery into a simple comment about the weather.
It was, after all, your fuckwittery about one local day's weather.
>All I said was that it was snowing at my house. You said it was normal
>for this time of year.
No, I did not. But not foorp of no global warming (and, in
fact, global cooling) as you implied either.
>I showed that it wasn't. Now you've cross posted
>your fuckwittery across several groups none of which are related to
>weather.
In Chicago one day?
How odd. What about climate or global warming?
>What is wrong with you?
I'm not in denial nor do I look for winger-junk.
[
Noted Climatologist Pat Robertson said at a recent Intelligent Design Weather
Symposium that he believes that Florida's hurricane problems are due to the
devil.
]
>>>> That can bring isolated cold at unusual times too.
>>>
>>>You keep saying that yet have no explanations as to how warmth makes it
>>>colder.
>>
>> What part of "global warming" is unclear?
>
>Just the part where you claim warmer makes it colder.
As it gets warmer overall you don't increase the rate of heat transport to
the poles? Nor risk odd bursts of cold polar air from them in return?
>> The parts about the ice in the Arctic melting? The parts
>> about it getting warmer? The parts about the glaciers
>> melting?
>
>Simmer down Nancy. All I said was that it snowed at my house. You claimed
>it was because it was warmer. It's not. You also claimed it was normal,
>odd that is, because it conflicts with your warmer theory. It's not
>normal either.
I never claimed it was average for the day of the year there. Just
not the sort of unusual to disprove global warming, effects of greenhouse
gasses, etc.
>So you checked? Denial noted.
>
>>
>>>Why the shift in rhetoric?
>
>Hmph. No answer.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The new all purpose
>>>>>term is "Climate Change". That way any natural disaster or weather
>>>>>anomaly can be blamed on anthropogenic climate change.
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070425164935.htm
>>>>
>>>> "A collapse there could raise sea levels worldwide by a
>catastrophic
>>>> 20 feet."
>>>>
>>>> Good point, eh?
>>>
>>>Not nearly as good as the point that it appears to have happened many
>>>times in the past. Long before anthropogenic CO2 emmissions.
>>>
>>>Ruh Roh.
>>
>> But we know the cause this time & it's fast. And just getting
>> started up that curve.
>
>This curve?
>
><http://prisonplanet.com/images/march2008/210308graph2.jpg>
What is it?
Try this one: http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/graphics/large/22.jpg
Or the one from bush's cronies:
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/images/ipcc_scenario_prediction.gif
http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/HadCRUT3_UAH_RSS_MSU.jpg
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/global.jpg
http://davidsmith.auditblogs.com/files/2007/08/0819072.JPG
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/annual.png
(Hadley seems to be the HadSST2 data set.)
HTH
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:gqok149eaq9kpuk2q...@4ax.com:
>Okay. But aside from Cliff being wrong as usual,
Found a simple math error?
>there was never any
>definitive answer given.
To what, exactly?
>So far we've had a global temperature rise of 6
>degrees Celsius over 12,000 years time
As compared to perhaps another 6 degrees C or so over the next 90 years?
And you know how much the sea level rose with those last 6, right?
>and yet much of the ice persists
>from the last ice age.
So what?
>The land bound ice covers about 3-1/2% of the Earths surface and thus can
>only absorb a proportional amount of the total energy warming the surface
>of the Earth.
"Proportional" to what, exactly?
And wrong in any case. Nor is it the total to worry about .... it's
the extra that's retained.
>Consider the temperature of the ice. It's averages around
>-15 degrees not zero.
And would only take about 15,000 watt-seconds per kilogram
to bring it up to the melting point, right?
>Also there is the matter of elevation and local
>temperature. Antarctica has an average elevation of around 2400-2500
>meters IIRC, so the temperature will be around 16 degrees colder than at
>sea level
What part of your "average" did you miss?
>(Google "lapse rate"). Central Greenland averages around -30
>degrees and Antarctica around -50. There is simply no way that
>anthropogenic CO2 can raise temperatures high enough to warm those areas
>to the melting point of the ice that lives there.
Too bad about the glaciers in Greenland melting then, eh?
You don't suppose that it would have to melt & warm up on
the edges first, do you? Or that that process might cool the
air?
>So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to raise
>seas by 20 feet.
Always nice to meet an expert. Over what period of time?
BTW, Some thermal expansion of the seas too.
> Even if the temperature were to rise an additional 6
>degrees. Not enough ice exists at lower altitudes and in warmer areas to
>raise the seas by that depth. Hint: the easy to melt ice from the last
>ice age has mostly melted already.
Which, per you, took only 6 degrees.
>Adding 6 or even 10 degrees (way over
>the wildest predictions)
For how many years? 50?
>will only melt a bit more and not nearly enough
>to raise seas by the twenty foot mark in question.
So global warming just stops?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
IOW You don't think he knows much about the subject, eh?
>
>Jon Banquer
>San Diego, CA
Well, he clearly knows a lot more than you do. As usual.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>> The land bound ice covers about 3-1/2% of the Earths surface and thus
>>> can only absorb a proportional amount of the total energy warming the
>>> surface of the Earth.
>>
>> He failed physics and chemistry.
>
>I see. So what mysterious force is focusing the sun's energy on the ice
>covered areas?
Ever hear of "convection"? Or air or water?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>> Consider the temperature of the ice. It's averages around
>>> -15 degrees not zero. Also there is the matter of elevation and local
>>> temperature. Antarctica has an average elevation of around 2400-2500
>>> meters IIRC, so the temperature will be around 16 degrees colder than
>>> at sea level (Google "lapse rate"). Central Greenland averages around
>>> -30 degrees and Antarctica around -50. There is simply no way that
>>> anthropogenic CO2 can raise temperatures high enough to warm those
>>> areas to the melting point of the ice that lives there.
>>
>> He failed current events and geology, along with meteorology and
>> climatology.
>
>Never heard of latent heat? How about heat of fusion? Feel free to
>provide some data to show us all how the temperature of ice has no
>bearing on how long it takes to melt at a given energy input.
Just add ~1000 watt-seconds per kilogram-degree C to the data
already provided. Pretty simple.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to
>>> raise seas by 20 feet.
>>
>> He failed geology and climatology.
>
>How much does the temperature have to rise to make ice sitting in -50
>degree air melt? How much of the world's ice is sitting in just such a
>location?
Ice flows downhill too. And while ice is a poor conductor of heat
(compared to metals) it does conduct. So .... is it warming up?
Lots of thermal mass to keep it cool for a bit ..... as it warms so
will that air ....
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>> Even if the temperature were to rise an additional 6
>>> degrees. Not enough ice exists at lower altitudes and in warmer areas
>>> to raise the seas by that depth. Hint: the easy to melt ice from the
>>> last ice age has mostly melted already.
>>
>> He failed paleontology.
>
>Hint: You haven't a clue.
You took it & passed?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Well let's hear your explanation of how another five degree rise in
>temperature will melt all of the ice on the planet in anything less than
>a millenia.
You just claimed *that it would not melt*.
>Feel free to use science and numbers.
Give it a try <G>. Use calculus as needed.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:48:07 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>>>in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>>>of that ice to zero C.
>>
>> It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
>>a very good thermal conductor.
>
> If it is not a good conductor, then it is a good insulator?
Define "good". Ice is a slightly better thermal conductor than water.
>
>> Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
>> I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
>
> I have no idea what kind of calculations you have done that
>the Billions spent on research hasn't explained.
Different subject.
I just calculated the added heat per square meter & went from there
to how much could be used to melt ice (it's a heat sink for the atmosphere,
as are water & [to a lesser extent] land).
Pretty simple.
I did not try to predict the weather & climate nor when what might happen.
>>> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>>>Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>>>years to melt all the ice.
>>
>> Very clearly then the North polar ice cap has not melted any, right?
>
> There has been more and more ocean circulation in the last
>20,000 years as sea level has risen and the land bridge between Alaska
>and Asia has been submerged more and more.
Been pretty stable for the last 10,000 or so years. Warmer air & currents
are melting the ice.
> And there is evidence of some geothermal in the Arctic Ocean,
>can anybody say that Iceland is the _only_ hot spot.
There indeed are other warm spots.
But don't try to blame the melting on them. The melting is new; they are not.
>>> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>>>Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>>>needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
>>
>> I see you've not done any calculations.
>
> I have, and I included the latent heat of fusion, have you?
What did you think that the numbers I posted were about?
"It takes ~336,103 watt seconds to melt one Kg of ice".
>
>> How long does it take for an icecube to melt in a beer or
>>in the fridge?
>
> Too small a sample.
Not per your claim.
>I do know that in the winter of '62-63,
>the sidewalks in Lorain, Ohio were covered with packed snow and ice
>from the first week of December until May.
So?
> Water will melt ice a lot faster than air,
Sort of depends.
>and the Arctic ice
>always melts,
??
The extent of the ice pack is now much smaller & much thinner
& it breaks up earlier.
>and other factors besides temperature affect buildup
>of winter ice. When the sea surface is calm and smooth and it is
>cold, a thin layer of ice results, and if it coincidentally snows a lot
>at that time, ice can build up fast.
Snow is generally an insulator against cold air.
> So there has to be variations depending on calm seas, cold air,
>and snowfall. Note that snowfall is the big factor here, not warm
>air, if there is no snowfall, there is no replacement of ice that
>always melts or sublimates.
>
> The suggestion that it is "Global Warming" is so adolescent it
>is imbecilic, and the people calling it a simple case of a couple of
>degrees of warmer temperatures are doing science a lot of harm.
Have you tried to tell all the scientists that have & are studying
it that they are wrong & that sixth graders & wingers know better?
What did they say?
--
Cliff
Cliff
I pointed out where much of the heat is probably going. For now.
How did the water get warmer?
Any idea?
> When the mile thick ice sheet slide down from Canada across
>Ohio, Indiana and Illinois 20 or 30 thousand years ago it must
>have take a couple of thousand years to melt it even though the
>air was warmer at the lower latitude.
You don't suppose that it was cooler then & that there was a lot more
ice, do you?
I don't knw right off how long it took to melt. Look it up.
> And the melting created the Ohio River,
IIRC That was there before. Ice never got that far South.
Just a bit North of the river though it dumped this:
http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc10448.php
".. on very clear days, one is able to see the Columbus skyline."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancaster,_Ohio#Mount_Pleasant
>the volume is huge in
>a thick ice sheet, and there is no comparison between Arctic sea ice
>and the ice sheet on Greenland or Antarctica.
Ice flows & melts.
> Also, Greenland probably gets magnitudes more snow than most
>of the Arctic Ocean,
And it all goes where?
>just a few meter hill can cause a lot more snow,
>if you could check the stats on Shaker Heights, Ohio and compare them
>to Cleveland proper there is a big difference in snowfall, Cleveland
>is closer to Lake Erie, but the land rises a couple of dozen meters
>in Shaker Heights, and that often doubles the snowfall.
Lake effect too I'd think.
> I would suggest the height of the ice sheet on Greenland is one
>of the factors that sustains the ice, and the melting and calving of
>the edge of the ice sheet is a continuous thing, caused by the increase
>in ice load and glacier flow of the entire mass outward, the thickness
>of the ice becomes a factor of it's mass and density, more ice will
>flow faster, regulating the thickness.
As it warms it flows & melts faster, as it is doing.
> Another self regulating mechanism of nature.
And the extra heat is going where, exactly?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>Consider, for example, a chunk of ice breaking off into the surrounding
>>ocean (called an "ice berg." You may have seen one of these in that
>>great science film "Titanic."), absorbing all the Kcals from the
>>significantly denser ocean water!
>>
>>Those who do not understand science should not show off their ignorance...
>>
>>Dan
>
> Exactly, so why do you claim what you do, the ice on Greenland
>depends on snowfall, and at the height of the top of the ice, it snows
>a lot.
One often gets more snow when it's warmer.
Cold cold = low absolute humdity = little snow.
Cycle speeds up when warmer.
Net effect: Water loss from the glaciers.
--
Cliff
Cliff
> How can a few nuts think they are smart all of a sudden, claim
>warming when there is cooling, and then deny there is cooling?
What winger nutcases from the sixth grade told you to say that?
--
Cliff
D Murphy
4ax.com:
Right. But the ice isn't at 0 degrees C was my point.
Whata Fool
>On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to
>>>> raise seas by 20 feet.
>>>
>>> He failed geology and climatology.
>>
>>How much does the temperature have to rise to make ice sitting in -50
>>degree air melt? How much of the world's ice is sitting in just such a
>>location?
>
> Ice flows downhill too.
Ice doesn't flow downhill unless it is rather thick, it needs
enough mass/weight to cause pressure melting before it starts flowing.
Look at the sides of hills and mountains, and even behind
buildings where the sun never shines and see ice that seems to last
forever.
>And while ice is a poor conductor of heat
>(compared to metals) it does conduct. So .... is it warming up?
>Lots of thermal mass to keep it cool for a bit ..... as it warms so
>will that air ....
Watching grass grow is more interesting, and faster.
Whata Fool
>On Thu, 01 May 2008 23:13:12 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:48:07 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>>>>in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>>>>of that ice to zero C.
>>>
>>> It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
>>>a very good thermal conductor.
>>
>> If it is not a good conductor, then it is a good insulator?
>
> Define "good". Ice is a slightly better thermal conductor than water.
Are you sure, the molecules in water are free to move around,
while those in ice can only move so far.
>>> Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
>>> I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
>>
>> I have no idea what kind of calculations you have done that
>>the Billions spent on research hasn't explained.
>
> Different subject.
> I just calculated the added heat per square meter & went from there
>to how much could be used to melt ice (it's a heat sink for the atmosphere,
>as are water & [to a lesser extent] land).
> Pretty simple.
I hope you can understand that the surface area is the big factor
in thermal transfer, your method works ok on thin ice, like up to a
meter or so thick, it is totally clueless when it comes to ice that
is two miles thick in an ice sheet that can't get any thicker because
it's weight causes it to flow outward.
Even steel can only be so high before it's weight exceeds the
compression strength. So the two mile thick ice sheets are only
two miles thick because that is close to the maximum thickness possible.
Thin sections melt faster than solid cubes, that should be obvious
just looking at radiators with fins, I will give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume you just don't want to take the time to describe
the math for melting a cube compared to a thin sheet.
> I did not try to predict the weather & climate nor when what might happen.
The IPCC did, does, and will attempt to perpetuate the scam,
it keeps people on the payroll.
The weather does not change the time needed to melt ice very much,
thermal transfer only depends on the physics, a large iceberg may take
months or years to melt, there should be data on that.
If you were really interested in the science and not just perpetuating
the scam because it makes you sound intelligent to trailer trash liberals
and it helps you ego, you would get your head out of your behind and look
at the length of time icebergs last, and they are really small compared
to the ice sheet on Greenland, check out;
http://www.scp.byu.edu/data/iceberg/IcebergReport.pdf
>>>> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>>>>Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>>>>years to melt all the ice.
>>>
>>> Very clearly then the North polar ice cap has not melted any, right?
>>
>> There has been more and more ocean circulation in the last
>>20,000 years as sea level has risen and the land bridge between Alaska
>>and Asia has been submerged more and more.
>
> Been pretty stable for the last 10,000 or so years. Warmer air & currents
>are melting the ice.
Chances are the air is warmer because the water is warmer.
>> And there is evidence of some geothermal in the Arctic Ocean,
>>can anybody say that Iceland is the _only_ hot spot.
>
> There indeed are other warm spots.
> But don't try to blame the melting on them. The melting is new; they are not.
Of course the melting is new to dummies who think they are
the only ones smart enough tell the difference between water and ice.
>>>> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>>>>Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>>>>needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
>>>
>>> I see you've not done any calculations.
>>
>> I have, and I included the latent heat of fusion, have you?
>
>
> What did you think that the numbers I posted were about?
> "It takes ~336,103 watt seconds to melt one Kg of ice".
But you can't get that energy to the center of a large mass,
thermal transfer only takes place at the surface.
You are welcome to calculate the time needed to melt 400,000
cubic miles of ice, the time is so great at temperatures below 20 C
that I have no interest in doing it.
>>> How long does it take for an icecube to melt in a beer or
>>>in the fridge?
>>
>> Too small a sample.
>
> Not per your claim.
Precisely because the distance from the surface to the center
is small, and because the total mass is small.
>>I do know that in the winter of '62-63,
>>the sidewalks in Lorain, Ohio were covered with packed snow and ice
>>from the first week of December until May.
>
> So?
>
>> Water will melt ice a lot faster than air,
>
> Sort of depends.
Yes, on temperature and surface area relative to total mass.
>>and the Arctic ice
>>always melts,
>
> ??
> The extent of the ice pack is now much smaller & much thinner
>& it breaks up earlier.
So the seals come to land to give birth, and the polar bears
are waiting for them, that just means less baby seals for the fur
traders to beat to death with baseball bats.
>>and other factors besides temperature affect buildup
>>of winter ice. When the sea surface is calm and smooth and it is
>>cold, a thin layer of ice results, and if it coincidentally snows a lot
>>at that time, ice can build up fast.
>
> Snow is generally an insulator against cold air.
But even cold air causes ice to sublimate, snow has to go through
a packing process before it becomes ice.
>> So there has to be variations depending on calm seas, cold air,
>>and snowfall. Note that snowfall is the big factor here, not warm
>>air, if there is no snowfall, there is no replacement of ice that
>>always melts or sublimates.
>>
>> The suggestion that it is "Global Warming" is so adolescent it
>>is imbecilic, and the people calling it a simple case of a couple of
>>degrees of warmer temperatures are doing science a lot of harm.
>
> Have you tried to tell all the scientists that have & are studying
>it that they are wrong & that sixth graders & wingers know better?
> What did they say?
What do I care about them, if they don't know that snow melts
almost immediately if it falls in water above freezing, I can't help
them, they need special education.
As far as I know, all geologists and climate scientists know
that it is not going to get warm enough to melt even half the ice
on Greenland in less than 2000 years.
But maybe an earthquake will hasten the process and make
you and the GW nuts happy.
Paul E. Lehmann
I would be willing to bet that MOST Meteorologists
and so called "Climate Scientists" have never had
even a Freshman level course(s) in Geology.
Dan
I had no expectations. MOST people are much nicer in person, where
[un]common sense (social pressure) prevents them from being stupid
assholes...
The net is a different kind of place.
Dan
Dan
> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:EjOSj.359$JG5...@newsfe07.lga:
Admission is the first step to recovery.
> OK technically we are still in an ice age.
well, no, but we may have dodged one when we invented irrigation.
> But colloquially speaking most folks don't think that way.
And they would be correct. One of the great faults of the generic human
mind is the belief that if some is good, more is better.
>>> The land bound ice covers about 3-1/2% of the Earths surface and thus
>>> can only absorb a proportional amount of the total energy warming the
>>> surface of the Earth.
>> He failed physics and chemistry.
>
> I see. So what mysterious force is focusing the sun's energy on the ice
> covered areas?
Delta T, for just one. The fact that the atmosphere is a fluid [gas]
for another. They certainly are mysterious forces, I'll grant you that.
>>> Consider the temperature of the ice. It's averages around
>>> -15 degrees not zero. Also there is the matter of elevation and local
>>> temperature. Antarctica has an average elevation of around 2400-2500
>>> meters IIRC, so the temperature will be around 16 degrees colder than
>>> at sea level (Google "lapse rate"). Central Greenland averages around
>>> -30 degrees and Antarctica around -50. There is simply no way that
>>> anthropogenic CO2 can raise temperatures high enough to warm those
>>> areas to the melting point of the ice that lives there.
>> He failed current events and geology, along with meteorology and
>> climatology.
>
> Never heard of latent heat?
And you got that from which of my statements?
> How about heat of fusion?
Ditto. Grasping at straws is not helping your case. Throwing out
buzzwords does not convince us you know the principles behind them, or
how they intereact in the real world outside of physics texts with their
ideal conditions ("Two things you need to know for this class: F = MA
and you can't push a rope").
> Feel free to
> provide some data to show us all how the temperature of ice has no
> bearing on how long it takes to melt at a given energy input.
Well, let's just say that the ice has melted before, therefore, it can
melt again, all your buzzwords notwithstanding. QED.
Succinct enough?
>>> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice to
>>> raise seas by 20 feet.
>> He failed geology and climatology.
>
> How much does the temperature have to rise to make ice sitting in -50
> degree air melt? How much of the world's ice is sitting in just such a
> location?
I don't know, all of it.
>>> Even if the temperature were to rise an additional 6
>>> degrees. Not enough ice exists at lower altitudes and in warmer areas
>>> to raise the seas by that depth. Hint: the easy to melt ice from the
>>> last ice age has mostly melted already.
>> He failed paleontology.
>
> Hint: You haven't a clue.
Nice try. How's that Kilimanjaro glacier doing? You know, the one down
on the plains...
>>> Adding 6 or even 10 degrees (way over
>>> the wildest predictions) will only melt a bit more and not nearly
>>> enough to raise seas by the twenty foot mark in question.
>> After failing so many science subjects, it is easy to see why he
>> became a Republican. Faith-based science is an oxymoron. I'll leave
>> the description of D Murphy to the reader.
>
> Ah now I see the problem. Another blind idealogue who can't accept what
> he's just read. Typical response is to reply with insults.
Snicker. Gotta love it when these guys get cornered with their own words.
> Where did I claim to be a Republican? What is my faith? Yeah, thought
> so...
Got me there. Maybe one for you.
> Well let's hear your explanation of how another five degree rise in
> temperature will melt all of the ice on the planet in anything less than
> a millenia. Feel free to use science and numbers.
You mean like you haven't?
Cliff posted some lowball numbers. The actual numbers are quite a bit
worse.
> What does the IPCC have to say about your claim?
That the ice most certainly will melt in considerably less than 1000
years (barring a reversal in the mean time caused by the melt
interfering with the Atlantic and Pacific conveyors), that positive
feedback mechanisms are likely that can increase temperature faster and
more than your numbers, and that the most likely cause is anthropogenic.
> Sorry, but that will require some reading and an independent thought or
> two. Somehow I don't see you pulling it off.
Um, yeah.
> Cheers.
Same.
Dan
Dan
Not to mention insolation, friction, and a rise in air temp...
Then there is the fact that meltwater infiltrates through the ice,
sometimes en masse, speeding up the downward flow rates.
On top of that, the breaking of ice dams release some of the force
holding the upstream ice in place, allowing it to come to lower levels
to melt and/or break off into the sea (where it often melts, depending
on currents).
Further, ice melting in areas with a dark substrate (often caused by
becoming wet) will absorb more direct insolation, causing a positive
feedback loop. This is happening in the Arctic tundra, where the
permafrost isn't quite so much any more. Some of us who live near
and/or frequent mountainous areas know this process intimately.
Methinks he is a tad unaware of what temperature actually is, and how
distribution (temporally as well as spatially) is more important than
"average temperature." It seems the poles are warming faster than the
middle...
Dan
Dan
> Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in news:t32o14plk6pi9nlt9keat35k9lsvqsg938@
> 4ax.com:
> the "hill" at a rate that in many places exceeds the loss.
And those glaciers will be growing. Know any places like that? I would
imagine there are probably a few.
> And the point
> wasn't that the ice would never melt, it will never melt in anything less
> than 1,000 years. Longer given the recent temperature trends.
Got any numbers? Hint: the top of Kilimanjaro gets above -50 for some
part of the year... As does the top of Greenland. I'll ask my friend
about Antarctica.
Dan
Dan
> Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in news:pg2o14pdvhf6c6626g516gg31ic2qj2lpo@
> 4ax.com:
>
>> On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Well let's hear your explanation of how another five degree rise in
>>> temperature will melt all of the ice on the planet in anything less than
>>> a millenia.
>> You just claimed *that it would not melt*.
>
> etc..
>>> Feel free to use science and numbers.
>> Give it a try <G>. Use calculus as needed.
>
>
> The only energy input is from the sun. The sun warms the atmosphere which
> in turn acts on the ice. The amount of heat required to raise the
> temperature of the atmosphere 1 degrees C = 5.137 x 1018 x 1.005 = 5.162685
> x 1018 kJ (no calculus required). Now multiply that by 5 to get the
> predicted rise in temperature over the next 100 years which is supposed to
> melt all the ice. Lets use a nice round number of 2.5x10^19KJ
>
> Now as that air acts on the ice it cools. Heat is transfered, the air
> doesn't make any.
>
> So what would it take to raise sea levels by 20 feet? Let's see. The Oceans
> cover about 70% of the Earth's surface which is 5.1 x 1014 m^2. So in round
> numbers the ocean's surface area is 3.6 x 1014 m2. Let's get rid of the
> feet. 20 feet is 6 meters (roughly. A little simple math (no calculus yet)
> says we need a volume of 22 x 1015 m^3 of water. Since we are just roughing
> the numbers out let's just say we need the same volume of ice to melt. (Ice
> is actually less dense). Speaking of dense we'll need to know that water
> density is 1000kg per cubic meter.
>
> With me so far?
>
> The latent heat of melting ice is 334 kJ/kg of water. So it will take
> roughly 7.4x10^21KJ to melt enough ice to raise the sea by six meters.
>
> Remember how much energy it took to raise the atmospheric temperature by 5
> degrees? It was 2.5x10^19KJ. Let's make the math simple for you. 740/25=
> 29.6 Now take 29.6 and multiply it by 100 years and you get 2960 years.
> This is very rough as it doesn't take into account the temperature
> difference at higher altitudes nor the starting temperature of the ice. So
> the actual number of years is quite a bit longer.
>
> Simple right?
>
> Now show me that tricky calculus of your's smart guy.
>
> Prove that Al Gore isn't full of shit with his 20 foot sea rise in 100
> years. Remember he didn't do so well in science when he was in school. How
> did you do?
>
You forgot to account for the insolation rate (30 MJ/m2/day)...
Dan
D Murphy
> D Murphy wrote:
>> Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>> news:t32o14plk6pi9nlt9keat35k9lsvqsg938@ 4ax.com:
>>
>>> On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> So the answer is that it would be impossible to melt enough ice
>>>>>> to raise seas by 20 feet.
>>>>> He failed geology and climatology.
>>>> How much does the temperature have to rise to make ice sitting in
>>>> -50 degree air melt? How much of the world's ice is sitting in just
>>>> such a location?
>>> Ice flows downhill too. And while ice is a poor conductor of heat
>>> (compared to metals) it does conduct. So .... is it warming up?
>>> Lots of thermal mass to keep it cool for a bit ..... as it warms so
>>> will that air ....
>>
>> Your forgetting the rest of the dynamic. Ice is being added to the
>> top of the "hill" at a rate that in many places exceeds the loss.
>
> And those glaciers will be growing. Know any places like that? I
> would imagine there are probably a few.
Some 85% of Antarctica which contains 90% of the worlds ice. The ice is
increasing by nearly 2cm per year. Here is a picture of the new research
station - <http://www.buildersmerchantsjournal.net/news/images/4749.jpg>
It sits on hydraulic cylinders so that it can be raised above the
thickening ice. The old station was swallowed up by ice.
The continent has cooled .7 degrees over the last decade. The 15% that
has lost ice is losing it at a rate of abot 1cm per year. Do the math,
3/4 of the earths ice has been thickening.
>
>> And the point
>> wasn't that the ice would never melt, it will never melt in anything
>> less than 1,000 years. Longer given the recent temperature trends.
>
> Got any numbers? Hint: the top of Kilimanjaro gets above -50 for some
> part of the year... As does the top of Greenland. I'll ask my friend
> about Antarctica.
>
Here are some numbers - [The interior of Antarctica receives the most
indirect rays from the sun which makes it cooler. For long periods in the
winter it receives no sunlight at all. The interior has a very high
altitude which adds to the very cold temperatures.
Because the interior of Antarctica is a land mass and far away from the
ocean, it gets no warming effect from the water.The interior is
characterized by extreme cold and light snowfall. Raging blizzards often
occur, however, when winds pick up previously deposited snow and move it
from place to place. Almost continuous daylight occurs during the
southern hemisphere's summer and darkness during the southern
hemisphere's winter. On the polar plateau, temperature is controlled by
solar input, latitude and altitude. The annual average temperature is -
50°C (-58°F). Winter temperatures drop quickly, then level out. Summer is
short, from mid-December to mid-January, however, temperatures can reach
a balmy -30°C (-22°F)! This is partly due to the increase in solar
radiation, but also the surface of the ice is a little darker and,
therefore, less reflective after the winter. A small accumulation of
fresh snow at the onset of winter quickly restores the high surface
albedo.
A common feature of the plateau is a temperature inversion. Temperature
inversions occur when extremely cold, dense air settles near the surface
with warmer temperatures at some distance above (normally, temperatures
decrease with elevation). These inversions may only be 300 feet thick,
but the temperature difference can be over 50°F in that short distance.
The intensity of inversions is greater in winter when winds are lighter
and there are fewer clouds.]
from -
<http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/weather/climate.shtml>
Kilimanjaro has been shown to have been affected by deforestaion. Ask
your friend about that too.
terryc
> There are no clues what that is nor where it's from and it's scale
> is pretty meaningless in this context.
> Global warming is a long-term trend, not day by day at point A.
And "Global Warming" says that some places will get colder. Basically the
planet'sweather is gaining more energy and getting more active, so some
places will get hotter and some colder.
Thre hard part is sorting out the truth when there are feew reliable long
term weather recordings in your sand box.
Cliff
> >>Feel free to
>>>provide some data to show us all how the temperature of ice has no
>>>bearing on how long it takes to melt at a given energy input.
>>
>> Just add ~1000 watt-seconds per kilogram-degree C to the data
>> already provided. Pretty simple.
>
>Right.
Actually, I was wrong on that point. I had liquid water in mind
& in the wrong units.
Ice would take about 2,100 watt-seconds per kilogram-degree C
to heat up to it's melting point. About half as much energy per degree
C compared to heating liquid water.
> But the ice isn't at 0 degrees C was my point.
What was your "point"?
It was probably covered anyway.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in news:t32o14plk6pi9nlt9keat35k9lsvqsg938@
>4ax.com:
>
>Your forgetting the rest of the dynamic. Ice is being added to the top of
>the "hill" at a rate that in many places exceeds the loss.
Perhaps true in "places". Find out where, eh?
Then explain away the retreating glaciers, increased melt flows,
much faster moving (downhill) glaciers ...
>And the point
>wasn't that the ice would never melt, it will never melt in anything less
>than 1,000 years.
Show your math <VBG>.
>Longer given the recent temperature trends.
One month's noise is not the global warming trend & data.
And we still don't know about avalanche effects or tipping
points AFAIK. Just that it's much worse than the conservative
(optimistic best case) IPCC estimates based on old data.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>>And while ice is a poor conductor of heat
>>(compared to metals) it does conduct. So .... is it warming up?
>>Lots of thermal mass to keep it cool for a bit ..... as it warms so
>>will that air ....
>
> Watching grass grow is more interesting, and faster.
Grass has started to grow in places in Antarctica ..
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>Methinks he is a tad unaware of what temperature actually is
They probably confuse energy with temperature too.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff posted some lowball numbers. The actual numbers are quite a bit
>worse.
That's what I suspected. Hard to know the date (or accuracy) the
stuff came from without more searching that I wanted to invest. But
I wanted at least a rough calculation to show.
Was the higher number too low too? Probably ...
Have a better/more current one?
And how to extrapolate to the future on that curve as more
& more greenhouse gasses are added? Probably quasi-logarithmic
but black-body radiation will increase as well as it gets warmer
& that increases mostly as the fourth power of the absolute temp.
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
Thinking of a specific "retired" TV weatherman?
He probably majored in "communications science"
or something.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>If you are talking about Delta T in the context that a doubling of
>atmospheric CO2 will cause a 1.2 degree rise in temperature plus or minus
>some "feedback factor"
You seem confused about the basic concepts still.
You get added energy *each year*. Then more the next
year.
It warms things up. Each year. After enough time the temp is
up X degrees. Much of the added energy goes into water & ice &
melting ice (til the ice is gone).
I posted a crude approximation (low it seems) of what the
*air temp alone* would get to with just one year's added
energy *at the low figure* was it not for all the other places
that energy is going.
Each year the *rate of energy gain* goes up.
Each year there is more added energy to the prior
retained energy.
Energy is not temperature. Temperature is a result
of that added energy & the temperature depends on where
the energy flows & how fast.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 23:13:12 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:48:07 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>>> Dan should calculate the amount of energy and time involved
>>>>>in melting the amount of ice on greenland, after raising the temperature
>>>>>of that ice to zero C.
>>>>
>>>> It's not all going to increase in temp equally or uniformly. Ice is not
>>>>a very good thermal conductor.
>>>
>>> If it is not a good conductor, then it is a good insulator?
>>
>> Define "good". Ice is a slightly better thermal conductor than water.
>
> Are you sure,
Yes. Look it up.
>the molecules in water are free to move around,
>while those in ice can only move so far.
Which is a better thermal conductor?
Solid diamond (a solid like ice) or an inert gas
(such as ar used to insulate betwen the panes of the better
class of double-glazed windows)?
>>>> Did you calculate the added heat we get each year due to global warming?
>>>> I did some time ago. Guess where it ends up.
>>>
>>> I have no idea what kind of calculations you have done that
>>>the Billions spent on research hasn't explained.
>>
>> Different subject.
>> I just calculated the added heat per square meter & went from there
>>to how much could be used to melt ice (it's a heat sink for the atmosphere,
>>as are water & [to a lesser extent] land).
>> Pretty simple.
>
> I hope you can understand that the surface area is the big factor
>in thermal transfer, your method works ok on thin ice, like up to a
>meter or so thick, it is totally clueless when it comes to ice that
>is two miles thick in an ice sheet that can't get any thicker because
>it's weight causes it to flow outward.
It can melt from any direction I expect. Heat to melt >> heat
conducted to colder areas (to melt them later).
Icecubes melt from the outside in too.
> Even steel can only be so high before it's weight exceeds the
>compression strength. So the two mile thick ice sheets are only
>two miles thick because that is close to the maximum thickness possible.
Well, some are in enclosed valleys. The weight of the ice has depressed
the planet's crust in spots.
> Thin sections melt faster than solid cubes, that should be obvious
>just looking at radiators with fins, I will give you the benefit of
>the doubt and assume you just don't want to take the time to describe
>the math for melting a cube compared to a thin sheet.
You melt either one drop at a time.
>> I did not try to predict the weather & climate nor when what might happen.
>
> The IPCC did, does,
They don't predict next week's weather anyplace.
>and will attempt to perpetuate the scam,
>it keeps people on the payroll.
BS. AFAIK They don't even have a payroll to speak of.
You don't know who or what they are, do you?
Or what they do or how or why.
> The weather does not change the time needed to melt ice very much,
>thermal transfer only depends on the physics, a large iceberg may take
>months or years to melt, there should be data on that.
That's mostly heat transfer with the ocean.
> If you were really interested in the science and not just perpetuating
>the scam because it makes you sound intelligent to trailer trash liberals
>and it helps you ego, you would get your head out of your behind and look
>at the length of time icebergs last, and they are really small compared
>to the ice sheet on Greenland, check out;
>
>http://www.scp.byu.edu/data/iceberg/IcebergReport.pdf
So you are saying that the ice on Greenland will melt in a few months
or years?
>>>>> Even if it never snowed another flake, and the temperature over
>>>>>Greenland at all altitudes was 10 C, it might still take a thousand
>>>>>years to melt all the ice.
>>>>
>>>> Very clearly then the North polar ice cap has not melted any, right?
>>>
>>> There has been more and more ocean circulation in the last
>>>20,000 years as sea level has risen and the land bridge between Alaska
>>>and Asia has been submerged more and more.
>>
>> Been pretty stable for the last 10,000 or so years. Warmer air & currents
>>are melting the ice.
>
> Chances are the air is warmer because the water is warmer.
Any clue where the added heat you are now claiming came from?
>>> And there is evidence of some geothermal in the Arctic Ocean,
>>>can anybody say that Iceland is the _only_ hot spot.
>>
>> There indeed are other warm spots.
>> But don't try to blame the melting on them. The melting is new; they are not.
>
> Of course the melting is new to dummies who think they are
>the only ones smart enough tell the difference between water and ice.
"Warmer" spots such as the Gakkel Ridge? Which has been there
a long time?
http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/gakkel-ridge.jpg
>>>>> There has never been a subject of so much nonsense as this
>>>>>Global Warming bull manure, the public is tired of it, the media
>>>>>needs it to fill in the time when there is lack of news.
>>>>
>>>> I see you've not done any calculations.
>>>
>>> I have, and I included the latent heat of fusion, have you?
>>
>>
>> What did you think that the numbers I posted were about?
>> "It takes ~336,103 watt seconds to melt one Kg of ice".
>
> But you can't get that energy to the center of a large mass,
>thermal transfer only takes place at the surface.
So what?
You think icecubes melt from the inside out?
> You are welcome to calculate the time needed to melt 400,000
>cubic miles of ice, the time is so great at temperatures below 20 C
>that I have no interest in doing it.
>
>>>> How long does it take for an icecube to melt in a beer or
>>>>in the fridge?
>>>
>>> Too small a sample.
>>
>> Not per your claim.
>
> Precisely because the distance from the surface to the center
>is small, and because the total mass is small.
And it still melts from the outside in. Amazing !!
>>>I do know that in the winter of '62-63,
>>>the sidewalks in Lorain, Ohio were covered with packed snow and ice
>>>from the first week of December until May.
>>
>> So?
>>
>>> Water will melt ice a lot faster than air,
>>
>> Sort of depends.
>
> Yes, on temperature and surface area relative to total mass.
The glaciers seem to be melting from their edges & surfaces first ....
how odd ...
Did you know that they are measuring how cold it once was by measuring
the temps at varous layers in the ice?
It seems that the heat does not flow very well or fast in ice so we
have fossil temps to measure.
>>>and the Arctic ice
>>>always melts,
>>
>> ??
>> The extent of the ice pack is now much smaller & much thinner
>>& it breaks up earlier.
>
> So the seals come to land to give birth, and the polar bears
>are waiting for them,
The bears may be extinct in a few decades. Some species
of pengins too. Getting too warm ....
>that just means less baby seals for the fur
>traders to beat to death with baseball bats.
Thus denying wingers some of the joys of life.
>>>and other factors besides temperature affect buildup
>>>of winter ice. When the sea surface is calm and smooth and it is
>>>cold, a thin layer of ice results, and if it coincidentally snows a lot
>>>at that time, ice can build up fast.
>>
>> Snow is generally an insulator against cold air.
>
> But even cold air causes ice to sublimate, snow has to go through
>a packing process before it becomes ice.
What has that to do with snow being a fairly good insulator?
>>> So there has to be variations depending on calm seas, cold air,
>>>and snowfall. Note that snowfall is the big factor here, not warm
>>>air, if there is no snowfall, there is no replacement of ice that
>>>always melts or sublimates.
>>>
>>> The suggestion that it is "Global Warming" is so adolescent it
>>>is imbecilic, and the people calling it a simple case of a couple of
>>>degrees of warmer temperatures are doing science a lot of harm.
>>
>> Have you tried to tell all the scientists that have & are studying
>>it that they are wrong & that sixth graders & wingers know better?
>> What did they say?
>
> What do I care about them, if they don't know that snow melts
>almost immediately if it falls in water above freezing, I can't help
>them, they need special education.
You seem confused again. What was that about (in your mind)?
> As far as I know,
A key point.
>all geologists and climate scientists know
>that it is not going to get warm enough to melt even half the ice
>on Greenland in less than 2000 years.
Wrong.
> But maybe an earthquake will hasten the process and make
>you and the GW nuts happy.
How would an earthquake do that??
BTW, Greenland is having some as the ice melts
& the crust rebounds upwards due to the loss of weight
on it.
--
Cliff
Cliff
> If you were really interested in the science and not just perpetuating
>the scam because it makes you sound intelligent to trailer trash liberals
>and it helps you ego, you would get your head out of your behind and look
>at the length of time icebergs last, and they are really small compared
>to the ice sheet on Greenland, check out;
>
>http://www.scp.byu.edu/data/iceberg/IcebergReport.pdf
What do you think that was about???
--
Cliff
Whata Fool
The point was, it takes energy to heat the ice up to
zero C, then the latent heat of fusion has to be applied to
cause it to melt.
That issue of applying the heat is the problem, possibly
overlooked by you and the IPCC future tellers.
Heat can only be applied to the surfaces of the ice, and
that fact limits how fast the thermal transfer can take place.
And neither Greenland or Antarctica are going to stay warm
all year, so I need to up my estimate of the shortest possible
time for all the ice on Greenland to melt to 30,000 years, and
300,000 years for all the ice on Antarctica to melt.
The claim of ice sliding into the sea is an unknown, the
speculation that it could happen has no support, the speculation
that it can't happen has the support of it not happening for at
least thousands of years.
The melting of ice on Greenland or Antarctica is a fake issue,
conjured up by either a person wanting to mislead or a naive person
guessing.
The issue of earthquakes, volcanos, asteroids, or even unknown
events or issues leaves open a possible serious problem, but probably
not a very likely possibility.
Whata Fool
Yes, I have read all about the "volunteer" scientists, but
the budget is still sizeable, and the people who actually write
the analysis and future predictions probably on the payroll.
It is all a waste of time and effort, time, effort and
money that should be going into new home heating and personal
transport technology and production.
Whata Fool
It is about icebergs averaging 20 miles in diameter coming
off Antarctica, and lasting 20 years or so floating into warmer water.
Does that say anything about ice 2000 miles in diameter,
possibly taking 100,000 years to melt, I think so.
But Antarctica isn't even warming.
Cato
> On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 22:25:18 GMT, debc...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote:
> >Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss booksOn Wed, 30 Apr 2008
> >15:27:11 -0700, Dan <dnada...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Whata Fool wrote:
> >>> Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>>> On 30 Apr 2008 00:44:33 GMT, D Murphy <spamto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote in
> >>>>>news:ui3f14h269sla4k0r...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 03:16:09 GMT, debc...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> On 29 Apr 2008 01:11:23 GMT, D Murphy <spamto...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> debc...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote in news:481540ab.30227832
> >>>>>>>> @news.dslextreme.com:
>
> >>>>>>>>> Plenty hot today here, around 103.
> >>>>>>>> Snowing at teh house. It's almost May for crying out loud.> >>>>>>> Proves Cliff's global warming theory, you will probably still have
> >>>>>>> snow in July.
> >>>>>>> Daveb
> >>>>>> Why not?
> >>>>>> Warmer = less stable climate.
> >>>>> So warmth makes it colder?
> >>>> Warmer = less stable climate.
> >>>> That can bring isolated cold at unusual times too.
>
> >>>>> CO2 is truly a miracle gas. It's responsible for cold weather, dry
> >>>>> spells, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, melting glaciers, increased
> >>>>> ice cover, higher seas, lower seas, warmer seas, colder seas and of
> >>>>> course all heat waves in the last 100 years.
> >>>> Your current weather in Chicago is not at all unusual for
> >>>> Chicago for this time of year.
>
> >>>>> That's why nobody calls it "Global Warming" anymore.
> >>>> BS.
>
> >>>>> The new all purpose
> >>>>> term is "Climate Change". That way any natural disaster or weather
> >>>>> anomaly can be blamed on anthropogenic climate change.
>
> >>>>>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070425164935.htm
> >>>> "A collapse there could raise sea levels worldwide by a catastrophic 20 feet."
>
> >>>> Good point, eh?
>
> >>> A collapse of what, dummy?
>
> >>Land-bound glacial ice.
>
> >>> How much ice could be suspended in mid air,
>
> >>None.
>
> >>> which is
> >>> probably the only way it could collapse from warmer temperatures.
>
> >>Not true.
>
> >>> Almost all ice not sitting on solid ground is floating,
> >>> so the most likely way that any major collapse will happen is
> >>> from volcanos, earthquakes, or asteroid impacts.
>
> >>Not true.
>
> >>> Why are you suggesting any collapse could happen from
> >>> warming temperatures, are you selling carbon credits?
>
> >>There are masses of ice on both Greenland and the Antarctic, both land
> >>masses, so the ice is floating neither in mid-air nor on the ocean. The
> >>estimate is that the ice, if liquified, would raise worldwide sea levels
> >>about 20 feet. I'm not sure if that includes the small effect of those
> >>two land masses rising because the ice cap was removed.
>
> >>Is THAT clear enough?
>
> >>Dan
>
> >Library is well stocked - with Dr. Zeuss books
> >Daveb
>
> Wingers missed out when it came to science classes.
> Among other things.
> --
> Cliff- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean Left Wing .......... or Right Wing... they are both
Wingers....
Cato
> On Thu, 01 May 2008 06:22:29 -0400
>
> Cliff <Clhupr...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> debc...@dslextreme.com (DaveB) wrote in news:481540ab.30227832
> > >>>>>>>> @news.dslextreme.com:
>
> > >>>>>>>>> Plenty hot today here, around 103.
> > >>>>>>>> Snowing at teh house. It's almost May for crying out loud.
>
> Not anomalous weather that happens in one week.
> FYI
>
> --http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/30/bushs-magic-wand-and-its-legacy-o...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny then if you go back in the archives on here.... if there are
unusually warm temperatures anywhere... the AGW fanatics jump right on
it as evidence of Global Warming
But if Sceptics report unusual cold or wintery weather... they
can't use that because "climate change is measured in trends over
long periods of time."
Global Warming Fear Mongers.... hypocrites How come I am not
surprised???
jon_banquer
> Wingers....
You don't know much about Cliff Huprich is do you? They are only
Wingers to Cliff Huprich when they are on the Right. Cliff Huprich is
about as divisive as they come. Add to that he's a liar and an Anti-
Semite.
Jon Banquer
San Diego, CA
gk
jon_banquer wrote:
He probably doesn't know too much about Jonnie Boy either.
gk
Dan
So the level of the station is rising WRT a stable base height? Or is
there 2 cm of snow deposition per season?
You weren't clear on that point. Note that the bedrock beneath the
station is not acceptable for this purpose unless corrections are added.
He's never been to Kilimanjaro, how would he know?
You do realize that deforestation is anthropogenic, right?
Dan
Dan
> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote in news:vr6Tj.354$4R1...@newsfe07.lga:
> projected 5 degree C rise in temperature over the next 100 years will
> cause the seas to rise 20 feet. A quick sniff test tells me it's bullshit
> unless you are talking a time frame of several millenia.
>
> The only thing that needs to be considered is the increased energy input
> (5 degrees) for a rough estimate of how long it will take to melt that
> much ice. This rough estimate makes assumptions that the sun's energy
> will remain fairly constant.
>
> Try to keep up.
>
No, radiant heat is important, as is the fluidity of the air
transporting heat from the poles (where it is warmed independent of the
local temperature). The insolation rate is very important, because it
will replenish the energy absorbed by the ice. The CO2 merely prevents
the energy impinging on the system from reradiating into space at the
same rate as before.
The system is quite complex.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of
in your philosophy."
Dan
Dan
> That issue of applying the heat is the problem, possibly
> overlooked by you and the IPCC future tellers.
Gotta like this guy's truthiness quotient. If he is not one already,
the Republican Party has a spot for him.
Dan
Dan
In fact, climatology is included in the GeoSciences, at least at the
colleges I looked at...
Dan
Dan
And that is evidence of what? Show where I, for instance, have done so...
"I jumped off the cliff because Johnny did it." That argument has
rarely held water...
> But if Sceptics report unusual cold or wintery weather... they
> can't use that because "climate change is measured in trends over
> long periods of time."
Find where I have, in fact, chastized BOTH sides for doing such. It is
in the record multiple times...
> Global Warming Fear Mongers.... hypocrites How come I am not
> surprised???
Nothing surprises you?
Of course, your making shit up doesn't surprise me, either.
Let's just say there are ignorant people on both sides of the issue. It
does NOTHING to support or deny the thesis. So, why are you concerned?
Dan
Whata Fool
Get a blow torch and a 100 pound block of ice and try it.
Have you read the temperature data for Antarctica, average
minus 57 C, high in interior, minus 30 C.
Not a lot of ice melting at minus 30 C.
Cliff
>>> I would be willing to bet that MOST Meteorologists
>>> and so called "Climate Scientists" have never had
>>> even a Freshman level course(s) in Geology.
>>
>> Thinking of a specific "retired" TV weatherman?
>> He probably majored in "communications science"
>> or something.
>
>In fact, climatology is included in the GeoSciences, at least at the
>colleges I looked at...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22Anthony+Watts%22+%22PARKING+LOTS%22
--
Cliff
Cliff
LOL
>
>gk
--
Cliff
Dan
And just how is your statement an indication that people who don't agree
with you have overlooked anything?
Dan
Whata Fool
I wasn't addressing even the scientific community, just
the whacko nuts that seem to think the ice on Greenland and
Antarctica can melt in less than a thousand years.
terryc
> I wasn't addressing even the scientific community, just
> the whacko nuts that seem to think the ice on Greenland and
> Antarctica can melt in less than a thousand years.
Err, it doesn't have to. Just enough to affect circulations like the Gulf
stream.
Unknown
<newssixs...@woa.com.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 May 2008 01:58:59 -0400, Cliff wrote:
>> There are no clues what that is nor where it's from and it's scale
>> is pretty meaningless in this context.
>> Global warming is a long-term trend, not day by day at point A.
>
>And "Global Warming" says that some places will get colder. Basically the
>planet'sweather is gaining more energy and getting more active, so some
>places will get hotter and some colder.
<Quoting from above:>
'The NPR article, however, concludes with the odd claim that
”Trenberth and Willis agree that a few mild years have no effect on
the long-term trend of global warming. But they say there are still
things to learn about how our planet copes with the heat.”
This is denial of the obvious. The observed absence of heat
accumulation (of Joules) in the upper ocean (and in the troposphere)
for the last four years means that there has been NO global warming in
these climate metrics during this time period. It is unknown whether
this is a short term aberration but, regardless, it is clear that the
IPCC models have failed to skillfully predict this absence of warming.
That should have been the conclusion stated at the end of the NPR
story.'
Retief
Unknown
>>> Why not?
>>> Warmer = less stable climate.
>>
>>So warmth makes it colder?
>
> Warmer = less stable climate.
False. Temperature difference drives the instability. If warming
occurs, it occurs fastest in the coldest regions (this is simple
thermodynamics), decreasing the temperature difference between those
cold regions and the warmer equatorial region.
Retief
Cliff
It gets warmer in the polar areas exactly because of the more
rapid energy flows to the poles.
What do you suppose that does to mass flows, winds & convection?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 03 May 2008 15:29:35 -0500, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>
>>> If you were really interested in the science and not just perpetuating
>>>the scam because it makes you sound intelligent to trailer trash liberals
>>>and it helps you ego, you would get your head out of your behind and look
>>>at the length of time icebergs last, and they are really small compared
>>>to the ice sheet on Greenland, check out;
>>>
>>>http://www.scp.byu.edu/data/iceberg/IcebergReport.pdf
>>
>> What do you think that was about???
>
> It is about icebergs averaging 20 miles in diameter coming
>off Antarctica, and lasting 20 years or so floating into warmer water.
Highly unlikely. How thick would they be?
> Does that say anything about ice 2000 miles in diameter,
>possibly taking 100,000 years to melt, I think so.
Highly unlikely. How thick would they be?
> But Antarctica isn't even warming.
Yes, it is.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=antarctica+grass&btnG=Search+Images&gbv=2
"Climate myths: Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global
warming"
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11648
BTW, "Contrary to what you might expect, the third IPPC report predicted that
global warming would most likely lead to a thickening of the ice sheet over the
next century, with increased snowfall compensating for any melting cause by
warming."
--
Cliff
Cliff
>> BS. AFAIK They don't even have a payroll to speak of.
>> You don't know who or what they are, do you?
>> Or what they do or how or why.
>
> Yes, I have read all about the "volunteer" scientists, but
>the budget is still sizeable, and the people who actually write
>the analysis and future predictions probably on the payroll.
You don't know who or what they are, do you?
Or what they do or how or why.
> It is all a waste of time and effort, time, effort and
>money that should be going into new home heating and personal
>transport technology and production.
Why? To make even more CO2?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Whata Fool wrote:
>>> Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That issue of applying the heat is the problem, possibly
>>>>> overlooked by you and the IPCC future tellers.
>>>> Gotta like this guy's truthiness quotient. If he is not one already,
>>>> the Republican Party has a spot for him.
>>>>
>>>> Dan
>>>
>>> Get a blow torch and a 100 pound block of ice and try it.
>>>
>>> Have you read the temperature data for Antarctica, average
>>> minus 57 C, high in interior, minus 30 C.
>>>
>>> Not a lot of ice melting at minus 30 C.
>>
>>And just how is your statement an indication that people who don't agree
>>with you have overlooked anything?
>>
>>Dan
>
> I wasn't addressing even the scientific community,
IOW You just pulled winger propaganda out of your hat
or lied.
>just
>the whacko nuts that seem to think the ice on Greenland and
>Antarctica can melt in less than a thousand years.
The ones that have studied the matter?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:afnr1450l1fc1mf28...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 4 May 2008 00:35:18 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>If you are talking about Delta T in the context that a doubling of
>>>atmospheric CO2 will cause a 1.2 degree rise in temperature plus or
>>>minus some "feedback factor"
>>
>> You seem confused about the basic concepts still.
>
>That would be you.
It's not "doubling of atmospheric CO2 will raise the temp
1.2 degree". It's more similar to "doubling of atmospheric
CO2 will increase the energy retained *each year* by
X tetra-watt hours".
You seem confused about the basic concepts still.
>> You get added energy *each year*. Then more the next
>> year.
>> It warms things up. Each year. After enough time the temp is
>> up X degrees. Much of the added energy goes into water & ice &
>> melting ice (til the ice is gone).
>
>Yep. You are very confused.
You seem confused about the basic concepts still.
>> I posted a crude approximation (low it seems) of what the
>> *air temp alone* would get to with just one year's added
>> energy *at the low figure* was it not for all the other places
>> that energy is going.
>> Each year the *rate of energy gain* goes up.
>
>Until you have the predicted 5 degree C temp gain in 100 years?
Or worse.
>> Each year there is more added energy to the prior
>> retained energy.
>
>Master of the obvious.
>
>> Energy is not temperature. Temperature is a result
>> of that added energy & the temperature depends on where
>> the energy flows & how fast.
>
>Wow. Your high school teachers would be proud.
They were. Very.
>Let me get this straight; you snipped part of a question, stated some
>semi related, obvious, yet unrelated facts, and now you feel what? Smart?
You seem confused about the basic concepts still.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:60kr14pqqded6sn62...@4ax.com:
>
>>>And the point
>>>wasn't that the ice would never melt, it will never melt in anything
>>>less than 1,000 years.
>>
>> Show your math <VBG>.
>
>Already did.
Who where??
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in
>news:7cmr14lvcm7o1f8h2...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 03 May 2008 16:06:59 -0700, Dan <dnad...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff posted some lowball numbers. The actual numbers are quite a bit
>>>worse.
>>
>> That's what I suspected. Hard to know the date (or accuracy) the
>> stuff came from without more searching that I wanted to invest. But
>> I wanted at least a rough calculation to show.
>> Was the higher number too low too? Probably ...
>
>Duh. I showed you that your number was too low to melt all the ice.
HUH?
Not at all.
>Now
>you want to make up a new temp.
You seem confused about temperature & energy.
>Go right ahead. Make it all up, then you
>two can agree and the matter is settled. Simple. Sheesh.
Try the math yourself.
>> Have a better/more current one?
>
>Perhaps you should ask for an accurate one? LOL.
Later numbers maybe better. I'd hope so.
I used what I quickly found to show the general effects in a
simple way, not to redo the IPCC's work.
>> And how to extrapolate to the future on that curve as more
>> & more greenhouse gasses are added? Probably quasi-logarithmic
>> but black-body radiation will increase as well as it gets warmer
>> & that increases mostly as the fourth power of the absolute temp.
>
><sigh>
With any luck somebody has an extensively hyperlinked data
& text structure somewhere (sort of like a Wiki) that has
most of what is currently known .. I just don't know where
(& have not searched).
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
>> As far as I know, all geologists and
>> climate scientists know
>> that it is not going to get warm enough to melt
>> even half the ice on Greenland in less than 2000
>> years.
>
>I would be willing to bet that MOST Meteorologists
>and so called "Climate Scientists" have never had
>even a Freshman level course(s) in Geology.
The Dr. Paul E. Lehmann? Wine?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The only energy input is from the sun.
There are other more minor ones.
>The sun warms the atmosphere which
>in turn acts on the ice. The amount of heat required to raise the
>temperature of the atmosphere 1 degrees C = 5.137 x 1018 x 1.005 = 5.162685
>x 1018 kJ (no calculus required). Now multiply that by 5 to get the
>predicted rise in temperature over the next 100 years which is supposed to
>melt all the ice. Lets use a nice round number of 2.5x10^19KJ
[
Assuming 1.5 watts per square meter (some give the current
actual figure as 2.4 Watts per square meter) ... an average 24X7 world wide ...
Air at 50 degrees C & one atmosphere has a density of 1.09 (Kg/m3)
and a specific heat of 1.40.
A one kilometer high column of air (one meter square) would have a
mass of 1,400 Kg.
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
But we have a spot of luck here ... the atmosphere is much
deeper than one kilometer (though the density declines with
altitude) and the soil, ice & water can also remove a bit of the
added energy ... while warming up.
]
So
[
In one year (31,556,926 seconds) that's an added energy of
47,335,389 watt seconds or about 47,335 kilowatt seconds.
(47,335 kilowatt seconds)/(1.40 *1,400 Kg) = ~ 24 degrees C
(or 75 degrees F) per year in temperature rise (roughly)
]
CLUE: 24 >1.
I had watts per square meter so getting watt-years was
simple & I used the per square meter units (to keep it simple).
If we use the 2.4 figure instead of the 1.5 one we get
~ 38.4 degrees C per year.
38.4 > 1 too.
At 2.4 that gives us 2,400,00 watts per square meter or
~1.2 * 10^15 watts for the entire planet.
1.2 * 10^15 watts for an entire year is ~ 3.9 * 10^22
watt-seconds per year.
By an odd quirk of fate that is also ~ 3.9 * 10^22 Joules.
Above you said you are looking for 1018 kJ (~ 1 *10^6 Joules).
(3.9 * 10^22)/(1 *10^6) = 3.9 * 10^16
What do you want to do with all the extra ones?
BTW, 3.9 * 10^22 Joules could melt ~ 1.16 * 10^17 Kg
of ice per year (at zero C) and 1 cubic Km of ice masses
about 9.1 * 10^11 Kg so that could melt ~ 127,473 cubic
kilometers of said ice *per year* (~ 30,582 cubic miles
of melted ice per year).
Over 100 years that's 3,058,200 cubic miles ... and
all of that assumes NO MORE GREEN HOUSE GASSES.
"10,980 cubic Km of water per year will raise the oceans
1 foot per decade."
The wonders of simple math, eh?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The latent heat of melting ice is 334 kJ/kg of water.
336,103 but you were close for once.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhu...@aol.com> wrote in news:pg2o14pdvhf6c6626g516gg31ic2qj2lpo@
>4ax.com:
>
>> On 3 May 2008 01:40:33 GMT, D Murphy <spam...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Well let's hear your explanation of how another five degree rise in
>>>temperature will melt all of the ice on the planet in anything less than
>>>a millenia.
>>
>> You just claimed *that it would not melt*.
>
>It won't in any of our lifetimes, nor our children's or grandchildren's,
>etc..
>
>>
>>>Feel free to use science and numbers.
>>
>> Give it a try <G>. Use calculus as needed.
>
>Why would you need calculus? No wonder your math is so far off.
>
>The only energy input is from the sun. The sun warms the atmosphere which
>in turn acts on the ice. The amount of heat required to raise the
>temperature of the atmosphere 1 degrees C = 5.137 x 1018 x 1.005 = 5.162685
>x 1018 kJ (no calculus required). Now multiply that by 5 to get the
>predicted rise in temperature over the next 100 years which is supposed to
>melt all the ice. Lets use a nice round number of 2.5x10^19KJ
>
>Now as that air acts on the ice it cools. Heat is transfered, the air
>doesn't make any.
>
>So what would it take to raise sea levels by 20 feet? Let's see. The Oceans
>cover about 70% of the Earth's surface which is 5.1 x 1014 m^2. So in round
>numbers the ocean's surface area is 3.6 x 1014 m2. Let's get rid of the
>feet. 20 feet is 6 meters (roughly. A little simple math (no calculus yet)
>says we need a volume of 22 x 1015 m^3 of water. Since we are just roughing
>the numbers out let's just say we need the same volume of ice to melt. (Ice
>is actually less dense). Speaking of dense we'll need to know that water
>density is 1000kg per cubic meter.
>
>With me so far?
>
>The latent heat of melting ice is 334 kJ/kg of water. So it will take
>roughly 7.4x10^21KJ to melt enough ice to raise the sea by six meters.
>
>Remember how much energy it took to raise the atmospheric temperature by 5
>degrees? It was 2.5x10^19KJ. Let's make the math simple for you. 740/25=
>29.6 Now take 29.6 and multiply it by 100 years and you get 2960 years.
>This is very rough as it doesn't take into account the temperature
>difference at higher altitudes nor the starting temperature of the ice. So
>the actual number of years is quite a bit longer.
>
>Simple right?
You nearly got the latent heat of ice right, anyway.
>Now show me that tricky calculus of your's smart guy.
You'd need that to do more complicated calculations
(which are needed to estimate real effects) but do try
to get these basics correct first.
>Prove that Al Gore isn't full of shit with his 20 foot sea rise in 100
>years.
Get your facts & math right first <G>.
>Remember he didn't do so well in science when he was in school. How
>did you do?
Quite well, thanks. Did you take any?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>The only thing that needs to be considered is the increased energy input
>(5 degrees) for a rough estimate of how long it will take to melt that
>much ice.
Incorrect and "5 degrees" is not an "increased energy input"
in any case.
>This rough estimate makes assumptions that the sun's energy
>will remain fairly constant.
Which is nice but the excess energy retained by the greenhouse
effect is what matters as long as the sun does not go out or something.
Are you expecting it to do so in the near future?
--
Cliff