So, the ice is melting...
Nightcrawler
BradGuth
> or is it?
>
> http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php
Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
km3 of slow-ice to go.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:85b22249-5196-4dd3...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
>km3 of slow-ice to go.
Where?
By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:85b22249-5196-4dd3...@h40g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> >Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
> >km3 of slow-ice to go.
>
> Where?
>
> By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?
I seem to recall reading and perhaps having posted a link to research
of the current slow-ice loss at 917e6 tonnes tonnes per day, which is
1 km3/day.
My swag of 2.2 km3/day = 803 km3/year as the average for this century
= 0.25 meter rise. (not the near 2 meter rise as touted by some)
It's actually more complex, but good enough for my rough ballpark,
because I also include displacement via erosion and thermal expansion
factors.
~ BG
BradGuth
> >Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
> >km3 of slow-ice to go.
>
> Where?
>
> By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?
I seem to recall reading and perhaps having posted a link to research
of the current slow-ice loss at 917e6 tonnes per day, which is 1 km3/
day.
My swag of 2.2 km3/day = 803 km3/year as the average for this century
= 0.25 meter rise. (not the near 2 meter rise as touted by some AGW
extremist)
BradGuth
> or is it?
>
> http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php
Currently we’re only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we
got at least 30e6 km3 of slow-ice to go.
Hypertextbook; remaining slow-ice as of 2003: 33e6 km3
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml
Possibly it's <36e6 km3 if every cubic meter of slow-ice is accounted
for.
~ BG
Chris.B
>
> Currently we’re only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we
> got at least 30e6 km3 of slow-ice to go.
>
> Hypertextbook; remaining slow-ice as of 2003: 33e6 km3
> http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/HannaBerenblit.shtml
>
> Possibly it's <36e6 km3 if every cubic meter of slow-ice is accounted
> for.
>
> ~ BG
Ice, ice everywhere and not a drop to drink.
Hagar
~ BG
**********************************
Way to go GuthBall ... like all Liberal wieners, when confronted
by facts and backed into the corner of irrefutable reality, come out
swinging your lame, brain-dead crapola and throw in some inane
and fuzzy make-believe pseudo math and call it a done deal.
BradGuth
Actually fresh water as easily derived from those Greenland and
Antarctic icebergs isn't all that insignificant. Perhaps eventually
<10% of that slow-ice could be recovered as fresh water, and utilized
where it's otherwise badly in short supply.
Currently we’re only thawing out at a modest km3/day, and supposedly
we got at least 33e6 km3 of glacial slow-ice to go. By some other
accepted measurement we've got <36e6 km3.
On Dec 12, 9:51 am, "Nightcrawler" <Dirtyde...@dirtcheap.net> wrote:
> How come this chunk of ice has been hanging around for ten years?
>
> http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/09/huge-iceberg-heading-toward-australi...
Firstly, in addition to those obvious glacial melts and numerous other
run-offs between the relatively warm crust and all of that glacial
slow-ice, it’s the increased cubic volumes of such seasonal icebergs
that’s also on the increase.
Icebergs tend to last because deep inside that berg it's still -16C
(if not –20C), and ice is actually a darn good thermal insulator if
it's thick enough, as well as the local ocean temperature surrounding
that ice is not likely much above 5C which doesn't give a whole lot of
thermal differential, especially as the coldest ocean thermal layer of
perhaps >1C is what remains within the first 10 cm of that ice.
My math could be somewhat off, although it supposedly takes 131 TW.h
in order to thaw a billion tonne volume of -16 C ice if that process
includes bringing it up to +17 C. Obviously the outer surface
temperature of that ice is merely frosty and near 0 C, whereas it
takes 93e12 W.h / 1e12 kg or 93 W.h/kg just to thaw that surface ice
into 0.6C fluid water. So, what's the local area sea temperature and
the surrounding air temp?
In the mean time, I'll recheck my swag as to ice thawing or water
warming energy requirements.
1 BTU = 1 degree F per pound (same as 1.055e3 J, or 0.293 W.h)
There's 2.2046e12 pounds per billion tonnes of ice, and therefore it’s
taking 2.2046e12 BTUs per degree(F)
Per metric tonne = 2.2046e12 BTUs = 646.1e6 KW.h
-16C to +17C represents a thermal difference of 66F
2.2046e12 x 66 = 145.5 e12 BTU = 42.642e9 KW.h or 42.642 TW.h
“In North America, a standard ton of refrigeration is 12,000 BTU/h
(3517 W). This is approximately the power required to melt one short
ton (2000 lb) of ice at 0 °C (32 °F) in 24 hours, thus representing
the delivery of 1 ton of ice per day.” (same as 3876.79 W.h x 24 =
93.043 KW.h per metric tonne)
An average thaw rate for this century of perhaps 2.2 km3/day or 2e9
tonnes/day x 93.043 KW.h = 186 TW.h/day (excluding those pesky factors
of ice insulating itself and the 33°C or 66° F thermal differential of
an iceberg core temperature of –16C becoming thermally equalized at
the average ocean temperature of +17C)
Problem is, it isn’t so simple because ice insulates ice. In fact 10+
meters of ice is providing terrific insulation, and 100+ meters of ice
is obviously a whole lot better reason as to why large icebergs tend
to last so long. Secondly, it seems we still have no objective
science pertaining to raw ice in the vacuum of space as fully solar
illuminated, such as deployed within the Apollo passive environment of
our Earth-moon L1(Selene L1) is still a total mystery. So, other than
going by theory, it seems we can’t even reasonably extrapolate with
certainty as to what the raw solar influx, plus whatever vacuum or
pressure has to do with the melting of any large block or significant
volume of ice. In other words, there’s simply no objective science as
to how long a given km3 of ice will last, especially if the vast bulk
of its interior is –20C (-25C not uncommon).
For something as critically important and life essential as water and
ice, it seems we’re still kind of flying blind, as well as being
global warmed to death, traumatized by greater storm intensities and
getting Noah flooded out at the same time, not to mention the whole
volume of Earth continually modulated by the 2e20 N/s of tidal force
from holding onto our moon(Selene). Perhaps our being impacted by an
extremely large asteroid would be a change for the better, because our
long-term terrestrial environment situation isn’t exactly looking
good.
~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's actually the research and math of others that know more than all
of us Usenet/newsgroup contributors combined.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
been shown evidence to the contrary and don't give a shit. So, you are the perfect
ostrich who is more interested in propping up a falsehood than facing the fact that
you are wrong and hence proving the fact that you mentally disturbed.
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:8cb2ebf5-fe7a-4431...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
BradGuth
> Hardly, when their research isn't about real world numbers or conditions. You've
> been shown evidence to the contrary and don't give a shit. So, you are the perfect
> ostrich who is more interested in propping up a falsehood than facing the fact that
> you are wrong and hence proving the fact that you mentally disturbed.
>
>
> It's actually the research and math of others that know more than all
> of us Usenet/newsgroup contributors combined.
Your obfuscation/exclusions and perpetual denial is noted.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
> or is it?
>
> http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php
>
Here is the actual paper referenced in the article
http://www.cpom.org/research/djw-ptrsa364.pdf
David Staup
you're debating an idiot, I mean an idiot of epic proportions...google
guthvenus and you will understand what I mean
"Nightcrawler" <Dirty...@dirtcheap.net> wrote in message
news:odCdneEJZomlD7jW...@giganews.com...
Nightcrawler
"David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:hg464m$5t9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> nightcrawler,
>
> you're debating an idiot, I mean an idiot of epic proportions...google guthvenus and you will understand what I mean
>
Oh, I know him from the alt.astronomy group. His theories about Sirius and the moon
are friggin' hilarious.
Nightcrawler
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:uoidna23_poeC7jW...@mchsi.com...
Thanks, Sam.
BradGuth
> nightcrawler,
>
> you're debating an idiot, I mean an idiot of epic proportions...google
> guthvenus and you will understand what I mean
>
>
> news:odCdneEJZomlD7jW...@giganews.com...
>
> > Hardly, when their research isn't about real world numbers or conditions.
> > You've
> > been shown evidence to the contrary and don't give a shit. So, you are
> > the perfect
> > ostrich who is more interested in propping up a falsehood than facing the
> > fact that
> > you are wrong and hence proving the fact that you mentally disturbed.
>
> >news:8cb2ebf5-fe7a-4431...@r24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > It's actually the research and math of others that know more than all
> > of us Usenet/newsgroup contributors combined.
You seem Jewish, and you also have no sense of adventure, much less
physics, or science. Why is that?
~ BG
BradGuth
> "David Staup" <dst...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in messagenews:hg464m$5t9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > nightcrawler,
>
> > you're debating an idiot, I mean an idiot of epic proportions...google guthvenus and you will understand what I mean
>
> Oh, I know him from the alt.astronomy group. His theories about Sirius and the moon
> are friggin' hilarious.
I've got nothing compared to your lies.
~ BG
Hagar
~ BG
**************************************
Like that bunch of "scientists" in Britain, who had to bend, fold,
spindle and mutilate their findings to match their wet dream of
Global Warming ... right on, doofus ....
BradGuth
Everyone cherry picks, including yourself.
It is the combination of multiple independent research that has been
consistent as to estimating the amount of ice loss, as currently at
roughly km3/day and increasing.
My swag of suggesting an average melt for this century as 2.2 km3/day
isn't too far out of line.
CO2 is just one of several indicators and subsequent secondary warming
factors, mostly derived from natural/internal and by off-world causes,
plus otherwise perhaps 10~25% as directly from what humanity
contributes.
The ongoing ptocess of "Ice sheets and other slow systems could
intensify long-term warming" is reasonably correct, and that's why
I've given a conservative doubling per century of the average daily
melt, whereas this century could average 2.2 km3/day.
Avg. slow-ice thaw per day and per each century = added ocean level:
2.2 km3/day = 8e4 km3/century = .25 m/century
4.4 km3/day = 1.6e5 km3/century = .5 m/century
8.8 km3/day = 3.2e5 km3/century = 1 m/century
17.6 km3/dy = 6.4e5 km3/century = 2 m/century
35.2 km3/dy = 1.28e6 km3/century = 4 m/century
70.4 km3/dy = 2.56e6 km3/century = 8 m/century
140.8 km3/d = 5.12e6 km3/century = 16 m/century
1.016 e7 km3 (nearly a third of global reserves) as thawed within the
next 700 years = 32 m (including continued erosion fill and thermal
expansion), actually is going to become somewhat less because of the
additional surface area coverage that these higher oceans represent,
so perhaps we’re looking as little as 28 meters as more likely.
28 meters within 700 years might still be considered by some as a
planet that’s drowning.
The good news is that within a thousand years of this global warming
trend, it has the potential to become more like the Noah flood of <60
meters, with perhaps 10<12e6 km3 remaining as Antarctic untouchable
and even a small perpetual Greenland cap that should never vanish
unless Greenland itself erupts like our greater Yellowstone is about
to do. Again, this is not a problem for the rich and powerful, or
suggesting any shortage of seasonal fast-ice and snow for them to play
in.
~ BG
Nightcrawler
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f6df984b-34d4-473e...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
<Typical obfuscation with numbers crap snipped>
Yo, moron.
How much ice melt was sea ice?
How much ice was in water, but attached to grounded ice?
How much has the land risen since the weight of the ice is no longer on the land?
What is the volumetric difference between ice and water?
What volume of ice melt is cyclical contrasted against what is supposedly new?
Glaciers don't count since they suffer from regional and anomalous conditions.
Meaning: stick to the arctic or take your gibberish to alt.fantasy.
(Glaciers may shrink for reasons other than temperature, idiot)
BradGuth
> "BradGuth" <bradg...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:f6df984b-34d4-473e...@u8g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Your whining and cherry picking is noted.
Tell us where those supposed km3/day of slow-ice that are growing
faster than other slow-ice is melting.
Perhaps if the Antarctic interior desert of 2" average precipitation/
year were to increase by two fold, say up to 4"/year, might actually
do the trick if all 100% of the existing snow and ice covered
Antarctica gets nailed by this 4" of annual precipitation as turning
into glacial slow-ice.
http://www.scar.org/information/statistics/
12.1e15 m2 x .1 m = 1.21 e15 m3 = 1.21e6 km3
At best, count on 10% of that added precipitation becoming glacial
slow-ice, therefore with a doubling of snowfall we'll get perhaps a
net gain of 0.1e6 km3 per year, or 1e6 km3/decade, and 10e6 km3/
century.
Along the coast of Antarctica it gets upwards of 8" precipitation, and
therefore only a small percentage increase (<50%) will do quite
nicely.
Trick is, how to make it snow at near twice the annual amount in
Antarctica, and perhaps the same goes for Greenland.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/images/global-surface-temp-trends.gif
And accompanying Sea Level Rise
http://www.wildwildweather.com/forecastblog/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/700px-recent_sea_level_rise.png
Nightcrawler
So, the Canadian link I provided for you in the past was ignored?
This does not surprise me.
"BradGuth" <brad...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:13ace933-e52c-40e1...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
BradGuth
> So, the Australian link I provided for you in the past was ignored?
> So, the Canadian link I provided for you in the past was ignored?
>
> This does not surprise me.
>
>
> Tell us where those supposed km3/day of slow-ice that are growing
> faster than other slow-ice is melting.
You are saying that NOAA, SCAR and a number of other unrelated groups
are in cahoots with this climate ruse thing?
I’ll agree that government agencies as a whole should not be trusted
on any regular basis, but so many independent groups seem to have this
one about glacial slow-ice loss pretty much nailed down to similar
numbers (+/-10%) in spite of their research being continually
underfunded and/or attacked by those of your obfuscation and cherry
picking kind.
Your incessant Republican and Zionist Nazi whining and cherry picking
form of Big Energy and status quo damage-control is noted. Those
Rothschilds couldn’t possibly be any prouder of their brown-nosed
clowns.
Do us all a big ass favor by telling us where those supposed km3/day
of slow-ice that are growing faster than other slow-ice is melting.
The key phrase here being “growing faster than other slow-ice is
melting”. Remember that seasonal fast-ice still doesn’t count.
Perhaps if the Antarctic interior desert of 2" average precipitation/
year were to increase by two fold, say contributing up to 4"/year,
might actually do the trick if all 100% of the existing snow and ice
covered Antarctica gets nailed by this 4" of annual precipitation as
turning into glacial slow-ice.
http://www.scar.org/information/statistics/
12.1e15 m2 x .1 m = 1.21 e15 m3 = 1.21e6 km3
At best, count on 10% of that added precipitation becoming glacial
slow-ice, therefore with a doubling of snowfall we'll get perhaps a
net gain of 0.1e6 km3 per year, or 1e6 km3/decade, and 10e6 km3/
century.
Along the coast of Antarctica it gets upwards of 8" precipitation, and
therefore only a small percentage increase (<50%) will do quite
nicely.
Trick is, how to make it consistently snow at near twice the annual
amount in Antarctica, and perhaps the same goes for Greenland, because
that would build glacier slow-ice faster than we’re losing it.
~ BG
BradGuth
> Global surface (land and sea) temperature increase
>
> And accompanying Sea Level Rise
>
Apparently objective science doesn't count, unless it benefits their
naysay side of this argument.
~ BG
Sam Wormley
Good to know.