HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
Roger Coppock
By Frank D. Roylance
The Baltimore Sun
(Sep 23, 2006)
Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.
Within the past week, this "polynya" -- a Russian word for any open
water surrounded by sea ice -- finally melted through a part of the ice
that separated it from the open ocean, forming a kind of bay in the
planet's northern ice cap.
"The reason we're tracking it is because we had never seen anything
like that before," said Mark C. Serreze, senior research scientist at
the National Snow and Ice Data Center, in Boulder, Colo.
Polynyas occur every year in certain parts of the Arctic where warm
currents and persistent winds clear swaths of sea ice.
But this one, covering 38,000 square miles, is unique in the memory of
scientists who watch the Arctic ice closely because they see it as a
bellwether for the effects of global warming. They've found that the
area of the summer ice cap has been shrinking for at least three
decades, and it's getting thinner, too.
Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most extensive
summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an acceleration in the
rate of its long-term decline.
In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
accelerating rate.
The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
that strikes it, sending it back into space.
Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
fall and winter.
So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
across most of the region.
[ . . . ]
If current rates of summer melting continue, NSIDC researchers have
said, the Arctic Ocean could be completely ice-free in summer before
the end of this century.
[ . . . ]
Al Bedo
Temperature anomalies within the Arctic Ocean basin for August 2006
were not exceptional:
And dynamics (motion of the ice) change a lot.
A lot of melting takes place from mixing warmer water
from below to the surface. And there is always enough
warmer water beneath Arctic sea ice to melt it in
entirety should it be mixed upward vigorously enough.
Roger Coppock
is "Not particularly significant."!?!! Did you double up
on your Prozac™ today, Al?
Al Bedo wrote:
> Not particularly significant.
Brad Guth
news:1159098826....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
> Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
> expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
> solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
> from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
> fall and winter.
>
> So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
> were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
> across most of the region.
That's very true, in that the darker Earth becomes (especially ocean
dark as opposed to snowy white), the more solar energy gets absorbed,
whereas instead of taking in as little as 10%, it goes to as great as
90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now becoming extensively thawed is
simply adding further insult to injury in more ways than being of less
snow and ice covered, and those expanding dead zones of oceans are now
limited to being populated with jellyfish, if anything.
Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting environment, whereas by day the solar energy
obtains more access to the darker albedo of Earth, while at night the
added moisture that gets placed in our atmosphere becomes clouds which
only retains the solar influx more effectively.
But there's also the nearby mascon worth of our physically dark moon to
take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about the
amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also unavoidably
contributed into our environment.
That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting is how it'll simply
accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.
0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as potential energy is
worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do you really
think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's gravity force and
of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting converted via
friction into thermal energy?
Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (hot going towards the cold) of our global environment?
Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?
Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
unavoidably contributing gaseous elements that emerge to the surface,
into our oceans and contribute to the atmosphere from time to time?
I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you additional tolls to appreciate the ongoing
demise that's primarily caused by our moon.
In other words, you are 100% correct that global warming is getting
rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can
moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean
energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother
Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this forever, and
unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer
ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy.
Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. What we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by
infomercial-science, and it's otherwise media driven at the commands of
those encharge.
Your being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished
is the extra proof-positive that you're right, as otherwise why all the
Usenet damage-control fuss each time you've posted another global
warming topic?
There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
folks like yourself that have seen the light of how much of that thaw
can be directly attributed to human factors, though seemingly unable to
translate that into actions that'll make a difference. Educating the
public via this mostly naysay Usenet anti-think-tank is not going to
happen unless you and others of your kind can manage to kick a few extra
butts, and unfortunately the New York Times wouldn't dare print anything
you've had to say because of their clients and otherwise sponsors would
either sue their socks off or merely extract any future financial
support, the largest of which being our own government and/or of
government sponsored institutions that upon average is what pays for the
most infomercial column inches.
-
Brad Guth
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
claudi...@sbcglobal.net
Roger Coppock wrote:
> A hole it the Northern ice covering 38,000 square miles
> is "Not particularly significant."!?!!
It's not significant and not unusual. A thousand years worth of data
would demonstrate this point vividly. But we don't have a thousand
years of data. We have only about 40 years of data. So don't piss
your pants.
Brad Guth
part my own global warming heart.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.military.naval/browse_frm/thread/95ccb680abbfa16d/e9e2e2810678d397?hl=en#e9e2e2810678d397
>Earl; Not "not global warming". It is "not manmade global warming"
>
>Earl; We have been in Global Warming ever since the Little Ice
>Age ended around 1850. Well over half the temperature rise that
>the Greens shrill about occured before WW2. Whereas the majority
>of the CO2 that is the blame was consumed after 1980.
I obviously don't entirely agree with the "not manmade global warming",
as that's been more than proven via replicated science to have been a
contributing factor, although I'm thinking it could represent as little
as 10% of the ongoing root cause.
The rather unfortunate "sun is a variable star!!" logic is only ever so
slightly correct, but not nearly sufficient nor in any way proven as
even having been nearly sufficient to have fluctuated by such an extent
unless you're talking about that sucker going absolutely postal on us,
and otherwise having been a passive bonfire as of those multi-thousand
year ice age dips.
And the infomercial wars of mainstream status quo that's wagging thy
dogs to death continues, as though we've got all the necessary smarts
plus all time in the world, and it's also as though our physiucally dark
moon that has supposedly been with us from the very beginning has
absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with our ongoing thaw from the last
ice age. However, what if our moon had only arrived as of 10,500 BC?
-
"Roger Coppock" <rcop...@adnc.com> wrote in message
news:1159098826....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
>Last year, scientists at NASA and the NSIDC reported the most
>extensive summer meltdown of Arctic sea ice on record, and an
>acceleration in the rate of its long-term decline.
>In a new study reported last week, NASA researcher Josefino Comiso
>found that the Arctic's winter ice is also in decline, and at an
>accelerating rate.
>
>The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
>temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar
>energy that strikes it, sending it back into space.
>
>Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy
>and expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent
>of the solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that
>heat from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in
>the fall and winter.
>
> So Arctic temperatures rise. From January through August 2005, they
> were 3.6 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than the long-term average
> across most of the region.
I have to concur that's all very true, in that the darker Earth becomes
(especially ocean darkness as opposed to icy/snowy white), the more
solar energy gets absorbed, whereas instead of taking in as little as
10%, it goes to as great as 90% absorbson. Frozen tundra that's now
becoming extensively thawed is simply adding further insult to injury in
more ways than being of less snow and ice covered, and those expanding
dead zones of oceans are now limited to being populated with jellyfish,
if there's anything.
Of more cloud coverage by night and less by day is also creating a
somewhat energy collecting/storage environment, whereas by day the solar
energy obtains more unobstructed access to the darker albedo of Earth,
while at night the added moisture that gets placed into our atmosphere
by day becomes clouds by night which only retains the solar influx more
effectively.
But there's also the nearby orbiting mascon worth of our physically dark
moon to take into account, and at this point I'm not even talking about
whatever amounts of reflected IR and of it's emitted FIR that's also
unavoidably contributed into our warming environment.
That nearby mascon moon of ours could be representing as great as 90% of
our continuing thaw, or perhaps as little as 75% responsible, whereas
either way it's inevitable that Earth will continue to thaw and
subsequently continues to global warm itself, along with our help of
uncontrolled pillaging, raping and polluting of mother Earth is how
it'll simply accomplish this task a whole lot sooner rather than later.
0.1% of the 2e20 joules worth of mascon force as the potential energy
resource is worth an average of 390 J/m2 upon the surface of Earth. Do
you folks really think that it's limiited to merely 0.1% of the moon's
gravity force and of those subsequent tidal affects that are getting
converted via friction into thermal energy?
Do you really think that such mascon induced ocean currents and thus
terrific tides are not responsible for expediting the ongoing thermal
moderation (warm energy going towards the cold) of our global
environment?
Do you really think that such a terrific gravitational applied force
that has been rotating about Earth isn't inducing the gradual
super-rotation of our molten mantle, that's situated a relatively short
distance below our feet?
Do you really think that such a terrific mascon affect isn't in any way
related to the ongoing platetonics and subsequent energy release plus
having unavoidably contributed gaseous elements that emerge to the
surface, into our oceans and simply contribute to the atmosphere from
time to time?
I'm not saying that humanity is outside the loop of what's cooking our
goose. I'm simply giving you folks additional tools to appreciate the
ongoing demise that's primarily caused by our moon.
In other words, you are 100% correct that global warming is getting
rather badly accelerated because of our own doings, and unless we can
moderate our ways and at the same time obtain greater amounts of clean
energy for our personal use without further pillaging and raping Mother
Earth, as such we're not going to get away with this forever, and
unfortunately most of us can not afford to keep finding higher and safer
ground, along with alternative resources of food and energy.
Unfortunately, our education system is anything but. What we seem to
know is basically infomercial-history that's supported by
infomercial-science, and it's otherwise media driven at the commands of
those encharge.
Your being topic/author stalked, bashed and as much as possible banished
from the GOOGLE/Usenet moderated groups is the extra proof-positive that
you're right, as otherwise why all the Usenet damage-control fuss and
flak each time you've posted another substantiated global warming topic?
There's absolutely no question that Earth's continuing thaw from the
last ice age is transpiring before our mostly dumbfounded eyes, and it's
the few and far between folks like Roger Coppock that have seen the
light of how much of that thaw can be directly attributed to human
factors, though seemingly unable to translate that into actions that'll
make a worthy difference. Educating the public via this mostly naysay
Usenet anti-think-tank that's focused upon wagging those poor dogs to
death, is not going to happen unless the likes of Roger Coppock and
others of your kind can manage to kick a few extra butts, and
unfortunately the New York Times and of similar publications wouldn't so
much as dare print anything you've had to say because of their insider
clients and otherwise status quo or bust sponsors would either sue their
socks off or merely extract any future financial support, the largest of
which being our own state and federal governments and/or of those
numerous government/public sponsored institutions, that upon average is
d...@dan.com
news:1159111806.0...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Your first statement is clearly refuted by your second. Illogical - you must
be a denier.
Bawana
You wouldn't know logic if it slapped you on the side of the head,
dunce.
You must be a do nothing doomsday cult cunt.
Phil.
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
>
> By Frank D. Roylance
> The Baltimore Sun
> (Sep 23, 2006)
>
> The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
> temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
> that strikes it, sending it back into space.
>
> Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
> expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
> solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
> from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
> fall and winter.
A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
implied here.
Roger Coppock
So you'd make policy on what you fantasize might be in a
longer data set, while totally ignoring the data we have?
You're crazier than Loopy Lopez, Mr. Denk/McGinn.
Al.Beato.His.Meato@Exxon.Stoodge.com http://snipurl.com/wozg
<c...@dark.side.of.the.moon> wrote in
news:45169712$0$25780$815e...@news.qwest.net:
Except you are guessing and you don't know. What the PICTORIAL EVIDENCE
SHOWS is not speculation by historical facts because pictures were taken
hourly and in some cases half-hourly day and night all summer long.
The PICTORIAL EVIDENCE shows something else happened, which is not
guesswork but is recorded facts.
Tropical Cyclones have been transferring large volumes of heat to the same
arctic region described.
The latest one can be imaged in process right now at the syncronous time
as the timestamp on this posting, remnants of Super Typhoon YAGI are seen
passing north over Alaska, as have each of the other megacyclones this
summer: Shanshan, Saomai, Chanchu, Ioke, Yagi.
Here's the pictures that ends the lies...
Remnants of Typhoon YAGI are seen in this picture, upper right corner in
redish-orange-yellow cloud masses illustrating the heat contents.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/mtsat/nwpac/rb-l.jpg
The next picture over shows large fragments of early disgorgement from
YAGI entering British Columbia and Alaska with two more large blocks of
heat-kinetic energy following. It is all rotating counter-clockwise from a
pivot point in the North Pacific due south of the Bering island chain at
this point in frozen time, but earlier in the year was swirling up into
the Arctic. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/west/nepac/rb-l.jpg
THE FIRST LAW OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY:
Energy is neither created nor destroyed. It changes form and changes
location. These typhoons are not "over" until the last bits of
heat-kinetic energy are done.
Typhoon Shanshan just spawned 37 tornadoes one day and 15 the day before
in midewest and south US.
Seen in this picture are Shanshan last remnants in line across US, bulk in
Eastern Canada, Helene in Atlantic and Gordon in Europe.
http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/goes/east/natl/rb-l.jpg
Remnants of GORDON are seen across the Mediteranean through France and
offscreen probably in Norway. http://www.ssd.noaa.gov/met8/neatl/rb-l.jpg
Follow Helene and follow the weather reports from global cities and see
how far it gets before final "dissolution", or ceasing of effects.
It's likely that the mass at the extreme top right side is remnants of
Hurricane Lane, although I haven't tracked it after it hit Ireland.
There are archives storing every incremental movement of these cloud
masses, and one can look back if one wants to know where things like this
melted ice lake in the Arctic came from.
Brad Guth
news:1159132096.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
> A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
> however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
> shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
> implied here.
Don't be such a Usenet wuss. Give us your better numbers.
The point is that without lots of snow and ice, Earth is going to have a
lower albedo and thereby it'll unavoidably absorb extra solar energy.
It's certainly not the other way around.
Phil.
Brad Guth wrote:
> "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
> news:1159132096.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>
> > A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
> > however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
> > shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
> > implied here.
>
> Don't be such a Usenet wuss. Give us your better numbers.
Check out http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
Look for graph of % reflectance vs angle of incidence (use n=1.33 in
the Fresnel equation)
>
> The point is that without lots of snow and ice, Earth is going to have a
> lower albedo and thereby it'll unavoidably absorb extra solar energy.
> It's certainly not the other way around.
True, but in the polar regions the difference isn't going to between
reflecting 80% or 10% for the reason given above.
Thomas Palm
@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
> Brad Guth wrote:
>> "Phil." <fel...@princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> news:1159132096.9...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com
>>
>> > A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
>> > however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
>> > shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
>> > implied here.
>>
>> Don't be such a Usenet wuss. Give us your better numbers.
>
> Check out http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
> Look for graph of % reflectance vs angle of incidence (use n=1.33 in
> the Fresnel equation)
This is a totally irrelevant link. The ocean is almost never flat
like a mirror. Add in waves and your reflectance curve look quite
a bit different. (This has been discussed earlier in sci.environment
and I think you can find references to better data)
Brad Guth
> Check out http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
> Look for graph of % reflectance vs angle of incidence (use n=1.33 in
> the Fresnel equation)
Thanks very much, but I don't believe it's going to prove that a dark
ocean is more solar reflective than snow and ice.
BTW; snow and ice is also highly insulative, especially when it's tens
of meters thick and otherwise if covering frozen tundra.
> > The point is that without lots of snow and ice, Earth is going to have a
> > lower albedo and thereby it'll unavoidably absorb extra solar energy.
> > It's certainly not the other way around.
>
> True, but in the polar regions the difference isn't going to between
> reflecting 80% or 10% for the reason given above.
Whatever, so you're still not going to fork over those numbers that you
obviously keep to yourself.
Besides, given time, our nearby orbiting mascon and IR/FIR worth of our
physically dark moon is going to continually thaw damn near every last
cubic meter of ice on Earth. Just wait until we're much closer to the
Sirius star/solar system.
Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages
This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it has
absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting. In order
to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The battery has been
charged.
The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
refreezing could occur.
The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
additional discharge of 5.0976e15
calories of heat energy must be emitted to the air before the lost ice is
fully refrozen.
The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
calories of heat energy released to the air.
2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.
2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules
In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
Joules)...
... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
kinetics as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast.
And Death Rag doesn't believe that heated air can heat the oceans. Bah,
Humbug.
Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages
NosmoKing
I don't think that the new lake is mentioned specifically at this site
yet, but I haven't read through the entire thing at this point. I
especially like the ice webcam at Barrow where I spent some time a few
years back.
Also some good link to ongoing and current Arctic Research.
http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/index.html
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
NosmoKing
> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
NosmoKing
> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
Eric Swanson
The albedo of the ocean is a function of the angle of incidence and the
wind speed, which has an impact on wave height. Google on "sun glint"
and also see:
Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959 (1972).
--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address: e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Hays
> Roger Coppock wrote:
>> The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
>> temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
>> that strikes it, sending it back into space.
>> Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
>> expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
>> solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
>> from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
>> fall and winter.
> A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
> however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
> shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
> implied here.
At low latitudes, the absorption is roughly 94%. It is lower at higher
latitudes, however at 80N it is greater than 90% for June-August.
--
Phil Hays
Eric Swanson
spampos...@comcast.net says...
Looking back at some work I did years ago where I used this reference, I found
the following. The solar zenith angle at 80N peaks at around 33 deg during
June at local noon. By July, the sun has already begun to sink below the
horizon, thus the maximum zenith angle drops toward 30 deg at local noon. By
August, the maximum zenith angle is about 22 deg. Ant that's only for noon,
so even though the sun is above the horizon all day long from April thru
August, most of the day the sun is just above the horizon. At a zenith angle
of 20 deg, the albedo is about 15%, at 10 deg, the albedo jumps to around 24%
and as the sun sinks further toward the horizon, the albedo can exceed 50%.
These albedo values depend on wave height, which is related to wind speed.
Don't forget the cosine effect, as the TOA insulation on a horizontal surface
rapidly declines to zero as the zenith angle approaches 90 deg. Also, as the
sea-ice melts, ponds form on the surface and thus for this area, the albedo
is much closer to that of open water without waves than that of ice with
by fresh snow cover.
Jonathan Kirwan
(Eric Swanson) wrote:
><snip>
>The albedo of the ocean is a function of the angle of incidence and the
>wind speed, which has an impact on wave height. Google on "sun glint"
>and also see:
>
>Payne, R. E., "Albedo of the Sea Surface", J. Atmos. Sci. 29, 959 (1972).
Eric, isn't there anything more recent than this?
Jon
Eric Swanson
>
>spampos...@comcast.net says...
>>Phil. wrote:
>>> Roger Coppock wrote:
>>
>>>> The ice cap is crucial because it helps regulate the planet's
>>>> temperature. Its bright surface reflects 80 percent of the solar energy
>>>> that strikes it, sending it back into space.
>>
>>>> Climatologists say a smaller ice cap will reflect less solar energy and
>>>> expose more open water, which is darker and absorbs 90 percent of the
>>>> solar energy that falls on it. It heats up, holds more of that heat
>>>> from year to year, and makes it harder for ice to form again in the
>>>> fall and winter.
>>
>>> A commonly repeated fallacy, this is true when the sun is overhead,
>>> however in the polar regions the sun never gets very high and at the
>>> shallow angles the difference between sea and ice is much less than
>>> implied here.
>>
>>At low latitudes, the absorption is roughly 94%. It is lower at higher
>>latitudes, however at 80N it is greater than 90% for June-August.
>>
>>http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-04
>69(1972)029%3C0959:AOTSS%3E2.0.CO%3B2
Trying again to fix my confusion of elevation and zenith angle (Z = 90 - E).....
Looking back at some work I did years ago where I used this reference, I found
the following. The solar elevation angle at 80N peaks at around 33 deg during
June at local noon. By July, the sun has already begun to sink toward the
horizon, thus the maximum elevation drops toward 30 deg at local noon. By
August, the maximum elevation is about 22 deg. Ant that's only for noon, so
that even though the sun is above the horizon all day long from April thru
August, most of the day the sun is just above the horizon. At a elevation
of 20 deg, the albedo is about 15%, at 10 deg, the albedo jumps to around 24%
and as the sun sinks further toward the horizon, the albedo can exceed 50%.
These albedo values depend on wave height, which is related to wind speed.
Don't forget the cosine effect, as the TOA insulation on a horizontal surface
(cosine Z) rapidly declines to zero as the zenith angle approaches 90 deg.
Brad Guth
<sun.myu...@thepopeshinesmyshoes.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9849FEE9...@207.115.17.102
: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
Absolutely impressive, and I totally agree that it's all about to
explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy little
fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, not to mention the
discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and other deep geophysical
resources that's now into our surface environment along with all of the
megatonnes worth of NOx from hell.
Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, as to even so much as realize how
totally snookered and summarily dumfounded we all are, and how soon some
of us are going to be prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a
direct result.
The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and they're
each doing just that.
Brad Guth
<sun.myu...@thepopeshinesmyshoes.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9849FEE9...@207.115.17.102
: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
: has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting.
: In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The
: battery has been charged.
>
> The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
> mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
> lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
> refreezing could occur.
>
> The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
> additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted
> to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen.
>
> The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
> calories of heat energy released to the air.
>
> 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.
>
> 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules
>
> In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
> Joules)...
>
>... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
> winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
> kinetics as a result.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
> A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
" This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. "
Absolutely impressive, and I totally agree that it's all about to
explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy little
fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, not to mention the
discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and other deep geophysical
resources that's now into our surface environment along with all of the
megatonnes/year worth of NOx from hell.
Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, as to even so much as realize how
totally snookered and summarily dumfounded we all are, and how soon some
of us are going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a
direct result.
The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that.
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
>
> By Frank D. Roylance
> The Baltimore Sun
> (Sep 23, 2006)
>
> Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
> Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
> bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.
B.S. "Bigger than the state of Indiana" (notice how the cabal always
uses these moron-friendly analogies?) in six weeks? Is there ANY
precidence for ice melt at that rate, anywhere???
Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK
news:1159222114.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
Oil Addicts are Bombing the Arctic with HEAT equal to 1,000 Nukes.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/793dc9b77e232890?hl=en&
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184 в 1015 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT = 22.97 Megatons of TNT.
This energy is equal to 637 times the pair of atomic bombs
dropped on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined
(15.08e13 Joules).
--vvvvvvvvvvvv-- previously posted --vvvvvvvvvvvv--
96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT melted the Arctic Sea Ice. PART 1
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/5d99bb4388b76732?hl=en&
http://snipurl.com/x2i9
Two news reports with usable data...
http://timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=519469&category=NATIONAL&BCCode=HOME&newsdat
e=9/23/2006
http://snipurl.com/x2fa
Ice cap 'lake' raises concern
Melted section in Arctic seen as bellwether for effects of global warming
... 38,000 square miles ...
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17750782&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=hole-in-the-pole--
name_page.
html http://snipurl.com/x2ft
HOLE IN THE POLE
Huge ice melt in 12 months
THE North Pole ice cap shrank by an area the size of England and France in
just 12 months.
Satellite pictures reveal a huge melt in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe
and Russia between December 21, 2004 and a year later.
In all, 280,000 square miles or 14 per cent of the permanent ice mass (the
white area, above) was lost - 20 times the yearly average. It was replaced
by thinner seasonal ice (blue area).
Scientists are urgently trying to establish if this is a new trend.
They are concerned because the three-metre thick ice would not normally
melt in summer. Unusual wind patterns pushing the ice out of the Arctic
may be a cause but temperatures in the region are rising twice as fast of
the global average.
Nasa's Dr Son Nghiem called the changes "rapid, dramatic and enormous".
The 7ft-thick seasonal ice is more likely to melt in summer with serious
environmental implications.
-----------
Assuming two facts...
(1) 38,000 square miles.
(2) 3-meter thick ice permanent ice.
... as givens, then a 1st approximation calculation of heat energy input
can be computed.
Converting 38,000 miles^2 to kilometers^2 = 98,420 square kilometers.
We might as well round up to 100,000 kilometers^2 for easier math.
100,000 kilometers^2 = 100,000,000 square meters surface area
100,000,000 m^2 x 3 meters deep = 300,000,000 cubic meters = 3e8 m^3.
3e8 m^3 = 3e14 CC = 300,000,000,000,000 cubic centimeters.
Each CC requires 79.72 calories per gram of heat energy to melt ice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fusion
Reference Values
The heat of fusion of water is
79.72 calories per gram
Ice is 4% less dense than water, so the volume of ice is
288,000,000,000,000 grams or 2.88e14 grams.
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
========================
This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it has
absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting. In order
to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The battery has been
charged.
The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
refreezing could occur.
The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
additional discharge of 5.0976e15
calories of heat energy must be emitted to the air before the lost ice is
fully refrozen.
The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
calories of heat energy released to the air.
2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.
2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules
In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
Joules)...
... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
kinetics as a result.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast.
And Death Rag doesn't believe that heated air can heat the oceans. Bah,
Humbug.
Tim Murphy
"Oil Junkie in denial"
<rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159222114.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Roger Coppock wrote:
> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
>
> By Frank D. Roylance
> The Baltimore Sun
> (Sep 23, 2006)
>
> Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
> Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
> bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.
..B.S. "Bigger than the state of Indiana" (notice how the cabal always
..uses these moron-friendly analogies?) in six weeks? Is there ANY
..precidence for ice melt at that rate, anywhere???
---------
"Bigger than the state of Indiana"?
Yes it is. At 38,000 square miles the Polynya is is bigger than Indian,
which is 36,420 square miles.
Wrong again huh?
Look here (nice pics with big hole in ice) :
Arctic Sea Ice News 2006
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/20060816_arcticseaicenews.html
=========
Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE
Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK wrote:
> "Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:1159222114.4...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Roger Coppock wrote:
> >> Huge lake has melted out of Arctic sea ice
> >>
> >> By Frank D. Roylance
> >> The Baltimore Sun
> >> (Sep 23, 2006)
> >>
> >> Something unusual is going on in the Beaufort Sea, a remote part of the
> >> Arctic Ocean north of Alaska. Over the past six weeks, a huge "lake"
> >> bigger than the state of Indiana has melted out of the sea ice.
> >
> > B.S. "Bigger than the state of Indiana" (notice how the cabal always
> > uses these moron-friendly analogies?) in six weeks? Is there ANY
> > precidence for ice melt at that rate, anywhere???
>
> Oil Addicts are Bombing the Arctic with HEAT equal to 1,000 Nukes.
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/793dc9b77e232890?hl=en&
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
Ah the silly analogies. "The heat of a hydrogen bomb!!!" So what. It
means nothing.
Also, is all the melting taking place sub-surface? If not, is there
any reduction in fresh water volume due
to evaporation?
James
"Thomas Lee Elifritz" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:_RwRg.914$av1...@newsfe07.lga...
> Al Bedo wrote:
>
> > Not particularly significant.
>
> Oh fuck off you ignorant lying fuck.
>
> > Temperature anomalies within the Arctic Ocean basin for August 2006
> > were not exceptional:
> >
> >
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2006&month_la
st=08&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=08&year1=2006&year2=2006&base1=1951&ba
se2=1980&radius=250&pol=pol
> >
> >
> > And dynamics (motion of the ice) change a lot.
> >
> > A lot of melting takes place from mixing warmer water
> > from below to the surface. And there is always enough
> > warmer water beneath Arctic sea ice to melt it in
> > entirety should it be mixed upward vigorously enough.
>
> now begun on a global scale, as it was expected with global warming.
>
> That's what happens when the melting of the ice caps proceeds at record
> and accelerating rates. The oceans begin to overturn, and the energy is
> transported down into the depths. In the oceans, cooler waters are
> transported to the surface, where they can begin to warm anew.
>
> This will proceed as an upward jigsaw of warming, melting, overturning,
> cooling and then warming, melting and overturning over and over again,
> until all the ice sheets are melted. It certainly isn't going to stop.
>
> Every time the cooling phase occurs, you assholes will claim victory.
LOL Just like the assholes do on warming phases?
Hysterical rightwing Karl Rove Fellators must SUCK
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
= 19,202.534 barrels of crude oil, or = 898,183,065 gallons of gasoline.
SO, nearly a trillion galons of gasoline energy went into melting the
Arctic Ice.
The ice floats. It's on the surface. As it melts and breaks up more of it
floats and melts. Sea ice by it's nature forces out the salt as it freezes
-- it is ALL FRESHWATER as it melts. It was 10 feet deep (3 meter). That
is not very deep so the lighter freshwater soon mixes with the salt brine
water below and both are salt sea water before long, especially if there
are winds and waves to stir it up. Once it is salt water it has a lower
freezing point.
That's why ZERO DEGREES exists on the Farenheit scale -- it's the
temperature where seat water freezes, and it's 32 degrees farenheit lower
than the freezing temperature of fresh salt-free water. That's why we
sprinkle salt on icy roads you know.
So to freeze this ice back up -- and this was PERMANENT ICE, not the
seasonal ice that builds over winter and melts regularly in the summer,
but the ice under the seasonal ice -- it takes the latent heat of fushion
plus the heat contents of freezing salt water to be ejected into the
environment.
You might think "Oh Boy, heat ejected into the environment, means warm
winter". Not at all. Ejecting heat into the environment at zero degrees
farenheit, - 17.7 degrees C, means winds at freezing temperatures and
below freezing temperatures. It means ARCTIC EXPRESS!!!
It means a trillion gallons of gasoline-power behind that cold engine
pushing it south. It means wind chills of maybe 50 degrees below zero.
In fact, if you go to this page...
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/20060816_arcticseaicenews.ht
ml
... and look at this map picture...
Figure 1: Sea ice extent for September 18, 2006
http://nsidc.org/news/press/2006_seaiceminimum/images_SJR/20060919_extentth
umb.gif
You will see exactly WHY it was 96 degrees below zero last winter in
Siberia, which is not very far from that ICE LAKE. Last winter was
Siberia's bad luck and CONUS good luck, but the winds just might pump down
to Chicago this year instead. Old Man Winter's Fuel Tank is fully charged
up and ready to roll!
The Arctic Express and 70 mile per hour winds are heat-kinetic energy too
you know. Everything above absolute zero, above a non-frozen-solid
atmosphere, is heat energy, even minus 96 degrees F.
Drunk James Licks@syphallis.sores.pus
>> Every time the cooling phase occurs, you assholes will claim victory.
>
> LOL Just like the assholes do on warming phases?
Oil Addicts are Bombing the Arctic with HEAT equal to 1,000 Nukes.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.environment/msg/793dc9b77e232890?hl=en&
--vvvvvvvvvvvv-- previously posted --vvvvvvvvvvvv--
-----------
Assuming two facts...
========================
Humbug.
Eric Swanson
>
>"Hysterical leftwing global warmers must DIE" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote
>in news:1159234703.6...@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
[cut]
>The ice floats. It's on the surface. As it melts and breaks up more of it
>floats and melts. Sea ice by it's nature forces out the salt as it freezes
>-- it is ALL FRESHWATER as it melts. It was 10 feet deep (3 meter). That
>is not very deep so the lighter freshwater soon mixes with the salt brine
>water below and both are salt sea water before long, especially if there
>are winds and waves to stir it up. Once it is salt water it has a lower
>freezing point.
Some of that salt enriched brine sinks to the bottom of the Arctic, as it
does around the Antarctic. The sea-ice also is not completely salt free,
as there are pockets of brine trapped within the ice as it freezes.
>That's why ZERO DEGREES exists on the Farenheit scale -- it's the
>temperature where seat water freezes, and it's 32 degrees farenheit lower
>than the freezing temperature of fresh salt-free water. That's why we
>sprinkle salt on icy roads you know.
While it's true that brine freezes at a low temperature, the amount of
salt in the oceans is not emough to depress the freezing point all the
way to zero Fahrenheit. Sea water freezes at about -2.0 C, depending on
the salinity at a particular location.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/Re-St/Sea-Water-Freezing-of.html
>So to freeze this ice back up -- and this was PERMANENT ICE, not the
>seasonal ice that builds over winter and melts regularly in the summer,
>but the ice under the seasonal ice -- it takes the latent heat of fushion
>plus the heat contents of freezing salt water to be ejected into the
>environment.
The notion of permanent ice is related to the location where the sea-ice
has never been known to melt during the warm months. The documented
decline in sea-ice extent implies that the area is decreasing at a
rather rapid rate. As the ice moves around quite a bit, some of that
area of permanent ice is left over from previous years, but that does
now imply that all permanent sea-ice is multi-year ice.
>You might think "Oh Boy, heat ejected into the environment, means warm
>winter". Not at all. Ejecting heat into the environment at zero degrees
>farenheit, - 17.7 degrees C, means winds at freezing temperatures and
>below freezing temperatures. It means ARCTIC EXPRESS!!!
When sea water freezes, the energy goes to warming the colder air above.
There is a considerable loss of energy from the ocean to the air above
as latent heat before the surface freezes. That's the energy required
to evaporate the surface water. Once the sea-ice forms, it tends to
insulate the water below, thus the cold air above can stay cold as it
flows away from the poles.
Another ignorant troll bites the dust.
Phil Hays
> Looking back at some work I did years ago where I used this reference, I
> found the following. The solar elevation angle at 80N peaks at around
> 33 deg during June at local noon. By July, the sun has already begun to
> sink toward the horizon, thus the maximum elevation drops toward 30 deg
> at local noon. By August, the maximum elevation is about 22 deg. Ant
> that's only for noon, so that even though the sun is above the horizon
> all day long from April thru August, most of the day the sun is just
> above the horizon. At a elevation of 20 deg, the albedo is about 15%,
> at 10 deg, the albedo jumps to around 24% and as the sun sinks further
> toward the horizon, the albedo can exceed 50%. These albedo values
> depend on wave height, which is related to wind speed.
>
> Don't forget the cosine effect, as the TOA insulation on a horizontal
> surface (cosine Z) rapidly declines to zero as the zenith angle
> approaches 90 deg. Also, as the sea-ice melts, ponds form on the surface
> and thus for this area, the albedo is much closer to that of open water
> without waves than that of ice with by fresh snow cover.
Your numbers are for clear sky, correct? What fraction of days at 80N are
clear in the summer?
Why did the reference get the 80N number so wrong?
Yes, don't forget the cosine effect, as the energy available at small
angles is smaller, and what we are discussing is the integration of albedo
over a day or longer time period.
Sea ice melt ponds are not always present, even in late summer, and when
they are the fraction of area coverage is variable, depending on lots of
factors, such as the thickness of the ice. Sea ice ponds also vary a lot
in albedo. Look at the picture in figure 2.
ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/85023.pdf
So rather than a simple model of snow vs open water, a better model would
have something like snow, bare ice, blue melt ponds, green melt ponds, and
open water. Oh yes, and both thin ice with a high coverage of melt ponds
and thick ice with a low coverage of melt ponds. Not even to mention the
variability of cloud coverage, and the variations in starting of melt
ponds.
So a warmer Arctic might be expected to have more open water, as well as
more melt ponds, starting earlier in the year, on a higher fraction of
thin ice. An amusing thought is that there might be more of an decrease in
albedo from the thinning of ice than from the reduction in ice area.
--
Phil Hays
Eric Swanson
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> Looking back at some work I did years ago where I used this reference, I
>> found the following. The solar elevation angle at 80N peaks at around
>> 33 deg during June at local noon. By July, the sun has already begun to
>> sink toward the horizon, thus the maximum elevation drops toward 30 deg
>> at local noon. By August, the maximum elevation is about 22 deg. Ant
>> that's only for noon, so that even though the sun is above the horizon
>> all day long from April thru August, most of the day the sun is just
>> above the horizon. At a elevation of 20 deg, the albedo is about 15%,
>> at 10 deg, the albedo jumps to around 24% and as the sun sinks further
>> toward the horizon, the albedo can exceed 50%. These albedo values
>> depend on wave height, which is related to wind speed.
>>
>> Don't forget the cosine effect, as the TOA insulation on a horizontal
>> surface (cosine Z) rapidly declines to zero as the zenith angle
>> approaches 90 deg. Also, as the sea-ice melts, ponds form on the surface
>> and thus for this area, the albedo is much closer to that of open water
>> without waves than that of ice with by fresh snow cover.
>
>Your numbers are for clear sky, correct? What fraction of days at 80N are
>clear in the summer?
I took the numbers above directly from Payne's graph. I don't have the
paper handy and in any case, it's a bit out of date. The albedo data was
gathered from a tower study located off the coast of New England, as I recall.
But, water's still water, right?
>Why did the reference get the 80N number so wrong?
I don't have the report in hand.
>Yes, don't forget the cosine effect, as the energy available at small
>angles is smaller, and what we are discussing is the integration of albedo
>over a day or longer time period.
Yes, and if the value is averaged, then the effects of clouds must also be
included somehow. An average with today's conditions might not apply to
the future if cloud variables change. Clouds tend to trap the visible energy,
due to multiple reflections and scattering. The TOA albedo under cloudy
conditions would likely be greater due to the relatively larger elevation of
the light as it meets the water. But, then, clouds also are reflective and
increasing cloud cover would tend to increase the albedo over the ocean.
>Sea ice melt ponds are not always present, even in late summer, and when
>they are the fraction of area coverage is variable, depending on lots of
>factors, such as the thickness of the ice. Sea ice ponds also vary a lot
>in albedo. Look at the picture in figure 2.
>
>ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/85023.pdf
Note that this was data taken on 13 June, at a location near Barrow, AK.
>So rather than a simple model of snow vs open water, a better model would
>have something like snow, bare ice, blue melt ponds, green melt ponds, and
>open water. Oh yes, and both thin ice with a high coverage of melt ponds
>and thick ice with a low coverage of melt ponds. Not even to mention the
>variability of cloud coverage, and the variations in starting of melt
>ponds.
>
>So a warmer Arctic might be expected to have more open water, as well as
>more melt ponds, starting earlier in the year, on a higher fraction of
>thin ice. An amusing thought is that there might be more of an decrease in
>albedo from the thinning of ice than from the reduction in ice area.
Sounds plausible. Also, thinner ice tends to transmit more visible light
directly to the water below, as the ice is partially transparent. So, we
find that the simplistic 5% vs 90% water to sea-ice albedo variation isn't
so simple. Here's a reference from the SHEBA experiment, FYI:
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/83739.pdf
Note that:
"For practical purposes, the radiometers at SHEBA were sited on a
multi-year ice floe so that the instrumentation wouldn’t need to
be relocated due to melting..."
I also found some pictures of the ice near SHEBA, which did melt and pond.
A couple of years ago, someone setup two WEB cameras at the North Pole,
pointed such that each could view the other. There was lots of ponding and
eventually, both fell over into the ponds....
Brad Guth
way too addictive to energy that's being extracted and otherwise
produced via some of the dirtiest known and otherwise soot, NOx plus
many other toxin producing methods. I think we're just downright greedy
little perverted bastards that really don't give a damn about others or
that of our failing environment, that's about to get yet another slap in
the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad our DNA isn't
getting rad-hard.
The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including
yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with
our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon
enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing
in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in
the dirty past that's killing us.
This one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger Coppock
dumbfounded past the point of no return, much like the matter of our
somewhat recently obtained moon having caused most of the last thaw via
gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to
boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't think inside or much less
outside the cozy little box that has been orchestrated as though
constructed around our dumb and dumber mindsets, in that we have to
believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or MI/NSA~NASA.
"Exxon Stockholders Liable for Global Warming Damages"
<sun.myu...@thepopeshinesmyshoes.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9849FEE9...@207.115.17.102
HUGE MELTED LAKE IN BEAUFORT SEA!
: This freshwater lake of melted ice is a thermal battery. That is, it
: has absorbed 96,126,250,000 Megajoules of HEAT in the act of meting.
: In order to refreeze it must emit that heat to the atmosphere. The
: battery has been charged.
> The freshwater has a depth of 3 meters, which is too shallow not to have
> mixed with the brine beneath. Therefore the freezing temperature has been
> lowered and additional energy must be extracted from the battery before
> refreezing could occur.
>
> The differential is 17.7 degrees C times the volume 2.88e14 grams for an
> additional discharge of 5.0976e15 calories of heat energy must be emitted
> to the air before the lost ice is fully refrozen.
>
> The net total is 5.0976e15 plus 2.295936e16 calories = 2.805696e16
> calories of heat energy released to the air.
>
> 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e11 MegaJoules = 117,606,600,000 MJ.
>
> 2.805696e16 calories = 1.175066e17 Joules
>
> In terms of Nukes the Fat Man and Little Boy atomic bombs (15.08e13
> Joules)...
>
>... 779 pairs of atomic bombs like Hiroshima and Nagasaki going of this
> winter in the Arctic. One should reasonably prepare for some energetic
> kinetics as a result.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaton
> A megaton of TNT is 4.184e15 joules = 4.184 petajoules (PJ).
" This is 28 million tons of TNT set to blast. "
Absolutely impressive, and I totally agree that it's all about to
explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant and greedy little
fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, not to mention the
discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and other deep geophysical energy
resources that's now into our surface environment along with all of the
megatonnes/year worth of NOx from hell.
Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded as to even so much as realize how
totally snookered and summarily dumfounded we all are, and how soon some
of us are going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a
direct result.
The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while
turning a hefty profit.
There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much
less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has
to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy
isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application
has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling
alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very
same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because,
apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable
without hardly a stitch of repercussions.
Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd
care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another
taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our
failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely
compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or
better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any viable
combination (including biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll represent a
near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any of NOx because, the
mostly nitrogen atmosphere itself isn't getting consumed. God forbid
that we should ever have a surplus of such environmentally clean energy
to put into the makings, storage and distributions of such nifty
products as LH2 or h2o2, and of subsequently making the consumption of
damn near everything else so much more efficient and so much cleaner,
not to mention biologically and environmentally so much end-user
friendly.
Phil Hays
>>Why did the reference get the 80N number so wrong?
>
> I don't have the report in hand.
I posted a link to it.
> So, we find that the simplistic 5% vs 90% water to sea-ice albedo
> variation isn't so simple.
The comment that started this was a simplistic 10% vs 80%. I'd agree 80%
is probably a bit high, even for multiyear ice, and that it is not as
simple as was stated. But the effect exists, and is partially responsible
for polar amplification of climate change.
> I also found some pictures of the ice near SHEBA, which did melt and
> pond. A couple of years ago, someone setup two WEB cameras at the North
> Pole, pointed such that each could view the other. There was lots of
> ponding and eventually, both fell over into the ponds....
In 2002 there was surprisingly small amount of ponding as seen by webcams.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_moods.php?year=2002
--
Phil Hays
Eric Swanson
>
>>>Why did the reference get the 80N number so wrong?
>>
>> I don't have the report in hand.
>
>I posted a link to it.
I saw the abstract, but didn't try to download, but now have. I used the
clear sky curve, Figure 4, not the calculated values in table 5. When the
sky is clear, the insolation is greatest. Under overcast skys, the albedo
is low, as would be expected, but this represents a rather small amount
of energy as compared with clear sky conditions, don't you think? The albedo
value at 80N for July is given as 0.09, which is rather small given that the
sun is already beginning to sink and the sun is at it's highest elevation for
only a few hours of the 24 that the sun is above the horizon. Using a monthly
valus might be appropriate when one is working with monthly averaged insolation
at the surface, but the instantanious value could be quite different. I think
it's not appropriate to use these values in a AOCGCM experiment, where the
cloudyness and atmospheric transmission are calculated with time. I think a
different albedo would be required for clear sky direct and cloudy sky diffuse
conditions, because changes insky conditions would be likely.
>> So, we find that the simplistic 5% vs 90% water to sea-ice albedo
>> variation isn't so simple.
>
>The comment that started this was a simplistic 10% vs 80%. I'd agree 80%
>is probably a bit high, even for multiyear ice, and that it is not as
>simple as was stated. But the effect exists, and is partially responsible
>for polar amplification of climate change.
I never claimed there was no amplification, just that it was not as large
as some of the more vocal commentators have repeatedly expressed. BTW, it's
been noted that multi-year ice has a lower albedo than new ice, AIUI.
>> I also found some pictures of the ice near SHEBA, which did melt and
>> pond. A couple of years ago, someone setup two WEB cameras at the North
>> Pole, pointed such that each could view the other. There was lots of
>> ponding and eventually, both fell over into the ponds....
>
>In 2002 there was surprisingly small amount of ponding as seen by webcams.
>
>http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_moods.php?year=2002
Thanks for the link, I thought it was a one year deal. Anyway, look at 2003,
where the cameras hit the deck and again in 2004 there was considerable
ponding. I'd expect to see year-to-year variation in location of the warmest
temperatures, probably related to the Arctic Oscillation, or NAO or whatever.
Eric Swanson Licks@syphallis.sores.pus
news:efbgfp$3hm$1...@news04.infoave.net:
Not so. Two numbers were given: the number for heat required to melt fresh
water ice, which is correct and unimpeached by you. The second number
depended on a lot of assumptions and is not quite as important as it
represents less than 20% of the total discussed energy. Any argument is
over that 20% fraction -- just how cold does it need to be to freeze sea
water 10 feet deep? You yourself concede 2/17ths of that 20% reducing the
quibble margin.
The argument of permanent versus moveable chunks is bogus. That puts you
into the troll category. THere is no 38,000 square mile hole playing
musical chairs with convenient ice chunks. Your implication is that this
is a normal event in an abnormal location. Nothing in the article can be
construed to help your argument. THe size magnitude is unprecedented.
Shifting icepacks occur at the edges, not internally in the center. You
lied. You got caught.
Your final paragraph illistrates the intentional deceptiveness you are
famous for.
Release of 79 calories per gram of heat as water freezes does not in any
way provide the 600 calories per gram required to evaporate water. There
is no assumption made by me, stated by me, or implied by me, that this
release of heat of fusion has any evaporative effect. Since you last
sentence reveals an intent to injure by hostile statements, your
motivation to lie and distort is plain on the surface -- no deep
psychological analysis is required.
As WE BOTH SAID "Once the sea-ice forms, it tends to insulate the water
below, thus the cold air above can stay cold as it flows away from the
poles." I pointed out the consequences of cold air pushed by release of
heat energy (-100 degrees is still heat energy).
I also made assumptions about the insulating effect in computing the heat
energy required to refreeze the entire 10 feet original depth of the
PERMANENT sea ice. In the end it will be found that my assumption that
-17C degrees required is more closely true than your -2C degrees when the
insulating effect of surface ice is taken into consideration. What is the
"R" value of ice insulation, anyway?
The fact is the original computations stand, based on the melting of
38,000 square miles by 3 meters deep of freshwater ice. You take the end
of the world as a spectator sport and do little or nothing over the years
to either demonstrate the crisis exists or the paths of action suggested
by the facts. Instead you attack proper calculations which you negligently
never computed yourself, and falsely labe the accurate computations as
troll. You show great windows into your syphallitic oozing sores pus
covered psyche when you do that. Your festering putrescence is not as
well hidden as you might think.
Eric Swanson
>
>swa...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote
>
>> Exxon_Seri...@RacketeersR.US says...
Sigh. The troll of many names still doesn't understand phase change.
Sea water with a salinity of about 35 psu freezes at at about -2.0 C.
No question about that fact. The air temperature required for this to
occur is a different issue, involving the time for the process to happen.
>The argument of permanent versus moveable chunks is bogus. That puts you
>into the troll category. THere is no 38,000 square mile hole playing
>musical chairs with convenient ice chunks. Your implication is that this
>is a normal event in an abnormal location. Nothing in the article can be
>construed to help your argument. THe size magnitude is unprecedented.
>
>Shifting icepacks occur at the edges, not internally in the center. You
>lied. You got caught.
Wrong, there have been numerous experiments with drifting ice stations and
bouys which demonstrate conclusively that the sea-ice moves rather
dramaticly in response to wind forcing and that the motion includes the
entire area of sea-ice.
>Your final paragraph illistrates the intentional deceptiveness you are
>famous for.
You should talk, oh Troll of Many Names. You will never be famous, cause
you won't stand up and sign your name to any of your mega posts.
>Release of 79 calories per gram of heat as water freezes does not in any
>way provide the 600 calories per gram required to evaporate water. There
>is no assumption made by me, stated by me, or implied by me, that this
>release of heat of fusion has any evaporative effect.
What does that have to do with the freezing point of water?
>As WE BOTH SAID "Once the sea-ice forms, it tends to insulate the water
>below, thus the cold air above can stay cold as it flows away from the
>poles." I pointed out the consequences of cold air pushed by release of
>heat energy (-100 degrees is still heat energy).
There you go again, confusing temperature with thermal energy transfer.
>I also made assumptions about the insulating effect in computing the heat
>energy required to refreeze the entire 10 feet original depth of the
>PERMANENT sea ice. In the end it will be found that my assumption that
>-17C degrees required is more closely true than your -2C degrees when the
>insulating effect of surface ice is taken into consideration. What is the
>"R" value of ice insulation, anyway?
Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K)
Data for other temperatures found here:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html
>The fact is the original computations stand, based on the melting of
>38,000 square miles by 3 meters deep of freshwater ice. You take the end
>of the world as a spectator sport and do little or nothing over the years
>to either demonstrate the crisis exists or the paths of action suggested
>by the facts. Instead you attack proper calculations which you negligently
>never computed yourself, and falsely labe the accurate computations as
>troll.
I have no capacity to demonstrate anything in meteorology or the atmospheric
sciences. Neither do you, oh Troll of Many Names.
---------------------------------------
Measurements and improved parameterizations of the thermal conductivity and
heat flow through first-year sea ice.
Hajo Eicken, University of Alaska - Fairbanks, and Martin Jeffries, University of
Alaska Geophysical Institute.
The sea-ice cover in the polar oceans strongly modifies ocean-atmosphere heat
transfer. Most important, the ice cover thermally insulates the ocean, with
sea-ice thermal conductivity determining the magnitude of the heat flow for a
given ice temperature gradient. Despite the importance of sea ice (second only
to ice albedo), our knowledge of sea-ice thermal conductivity is limited to
highly idealized models developed several decades ago. General circulation
models (GCMs) and large-scale sea-ice models include overly simplistic
parameterizations of ice thermal conductivity that are likely to contribute
significantly to errors in estimating ice production rates.
We will carry out a set of field measurements from which the thermal
conductivity of first-year sea ice will be derived as a function of ice
microstructure, temperature, salinity, and other parameters. Measurements will
be carried out by letting thermistor arrays freeze into the fast ice of McMurdo
Sound, which represents an ideal natural laboratory for this type of
measurement. To minimize errors and identify the most robust technique, we will
collaborate with colleagues from New Zealand and compare different
methodologies for measurement and analysis. We will also assess the impact of
ice microstructure (spatial distribution of brine, crystal sizes) and
convective processes on the effective rate of heat transfer. Antarctic data
will be compared with arctic thermal conductivity data sets to assess regional
contrasts and the impact of different physical processes on heat flow and to
arrive at a comprehensive, improved parameterization of ice thermal
conductivity for large-scale simulations and GCMs. This component of the work
will involve ice-growth modeling and collaboration with the Sea-Ice Model
Intercomparison Project
Team established under the auspices of the World Climate Research Program. This
research will advance and improve our understanding of the processes and
parameters controlling heat transfer and the thermal conductivity of first-year
sea ice, techniques for deriving thermal conductivity and heat flow data from
thermistor arrays, our understanding of sea-ice processes and heat flow through
the ice cover in McMurdo Sound, parameterizations of thermal conductivity for
use in large-scale and high-resolution one-dimensional simulations, and
the representation of first-year ice thermal properties (both antarctic and
arctic)
-----------
http://www.nsf.gov/od/opp/antarct/treaty/opp04001/pdfs/ocean.pdf
---------------------------------------
Phil Hays
> I used the clear sky curve, Figure 4, not the calculated values in table
> 5. When the sky is clear, the insolation is greatest. Under overcast
> skys, the albedo is low, as would be expected, but this represents a
> rather small amount of energy as compared with clear sky conditions,
> don't you think?
I'd look at the measured energy and cross reference with sky conditions.
For example:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2005/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
> The albedo value at 80N for July is given as 0.09, which is rather
> small given that the sun is already beginning to sink and the sun is at
> it's highest elevation for only a few hours of the 24 that the sun is
> above the horizon. Using a monthly valus might be appropriate when one
> is working with monthly averaged insolation at the surface, but the
> instantanious value could be quite different. I think it's not
> appropriate to use these values in a AOCGCM experiment, where the
> cloudyness and atmospheric transmission are calculated with time.
For a BOE calculation, the monthly value is probably close enough, unless
it was calculated incorrectly.
>>> So, we find that the simplistic 5% vs 90% water to sea-ice albedo
>>> variation isn't so simple.
>>
>>The comment that started this was a simplistic 10% vs 80%. I'd agree
>>80% is probably a bit high, even for multiyear ice, and that it is not
>>as simple as was stated. But the effect exists, and is partially
>>responsible for polar amplification of climate change.
>
> I never claimed there was no amplification, just that it was not as
> large as some of the more vocal commentators have repeatedly expressed.
So then complain about the number in most in error, in this case the 80%.
--
Phil Hays
Eric Swanson@syphallis.sores.pus
I understand that exactly 79 plus a fraction calories per gram must be ejected for water to fuse as solid -- the
heat of fusion. There is no argument from you over the number. You just make unverified claims that it is
more mysterious than that.
You don't quantify anything, say "here is the correct number" in place of an incorrect one. I never mind
being corrected. That's not what you do -- you cast aspersions that there's something not correct but are
unable to state what the alternative correct number might be, or post you reasoning. My assumptions were
posted, the math was included.
The first part of my post was the MELTING of reshwater ice. There is no argument that 79 calories per gram
is the number -- I posted, and you snipped in your hostility and LYING BEHAVIOR the link to wikipadia I had
included. WHY SNIP THE LINK? I was only a few characters long?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_enthalpy_change_of_fusion
Reference Values
The heat of fusion of water is
79.72 calories per gram
Now that number is credible whether I say it or you say it or you hide it. 79.72 calories per gram taken up
when water melts, given out when it freezes.
The following quote applies to the MELTING ONLY of freshwater:
Ice is 4% less dense than water, so the volume of ice is
288,000,000,000,000 grams or 2.88e14 grams.
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
It has no quibble in it of the salt brine freezing point because it describes freshwater MELTING. Your quibble
does not apply to that part whatsoever.
>>The argument of permanent versus moveable chunks is bogus. That puts you
>>into the troll category. THere is no 38,000 square mile hole playing
>>musical chairs with convenient ice chunks. Your implication is that this
>>is a normal event in an abnormal location. Nothing in the article can be
>>construed to help your argument. THe size magnitude is unprecedented.
>>
>>Shifting icepacks occur at the edges, not internally in the center. You
>>lied. You got caught.
>
> Wrong, there have been numerous experiments with drifting ice stations
> and bouys which demonstrate conclusively that the sea-ice moves rather
> dramaticly in response to wind forcing and that the motion includes the
> entire area of sea-ice.
It may move but it doesn't melt. Ships trapped in the ice have been ground to splinters. Some of this motion
is the expansion of ice over water volume which shoves and pushes and tilts and subducts other ice without
any open water in between. You do not concretize your claims with locations. Ice calving and floes at the
edges is not the subject at hand. Either you have attention-deficit-disorder that you vcan't stay on focus that
this is ice melted inside the preimeter of a vast ice plain, not ice shoreline, or else you are a wanton vandal
stirring up shit for no good reason.
>>Your final paragraph illistrates the intentional deceptiveness you are
>>famous for.
>
> You should talk, oh Troll of Many Names. You will never be famous,
> cause you won't stand up and sign your name to any of your mega posts.
You are under the false impression that the name of the sayer makes a science fact more true or less true. I
already have far more fame than I care for and do not seek more. Last time I checked my "real name" had
some 20,000 links on google (well I just checked and it's down to 13,100) which is more than adequate.
The calculator produces the same results for the same input figures no matter what your name is.
If you don't get these resulyts from two assumptions (1) 38,000 sq.mi., and (2) 3-meters deep ice melted than
you are doing it wrong, not that my name is wrong.
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
>>Release of 79 calories per gram of heat as water freezes does not in any
>>way provide the 600 calories per gram required to evaporate water. There
>>is no assumption made by me, stated by me, or implied by me, that this
>>release of heat of fusion has any evaporative effect.
>
> What does that have to do with the freezing point of water?
YOU reckless snipped your comment to which this is the reply. Now you pay for your snippage by getting
lost. The heat of fusion of water ice-liquid is 79.72 calories per gram. The heat of fusion liquid-vapor is 600
calories. I confined my remarks to liquid-ice but you spuriously included vaporization on top of that.
>>As WE BOTH SAID "Once the sea-ice forms, it tends to insulate the water
>>below, thus the cold air above can stay cold as it flows away from the
>>poles." I pointed out the consequences of cold air pushed by release of
>>heat energy (-100 degrees is still heat energy).
>
> There you go again, confusing temperature with thermal energy transfer.
The statem made by me and not snipped out by you makes no statements regarding temperatures versus
thermal transfer any more than your reply does. It make two points:
Point 1: There are consequences of releasing major heat energy in Arctic Winters.
Point 2: (-100 degrees is still heat energy), lest the Ignoratti jump to any conclusion that thermal energy
released by freezing fusion is "hot" in a human sensible way.
>>I also made assumptions about the insulating effect in computing the
>>heat energy required to refreeze the entire 10 feet original depth of
>>the PERMANENT sea ice. In the end it will be found that my assumption
>>that -17C degrees required is more closely true than your -2C degrees
>>when the insulating effect of surface ice is taken into consideration.
>>What is the "R" value of ice insulation, anyway?
>
> Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K)
>
> Data for other temperatures found here:
>
> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html
Thanks. From that a variety of scenarious could be computed to figure out when the proior status quo of 3-
meter ice pack had been regained. It's only the add-on part, less than 20% of the whole issue, as there is no
absolute quarantee that the 3-meter thickness will ever be replaced. It may be gone permanantly forever.
The future issue of how much heat energy would be injected into the environment by restoring the ice-pack
had nothing intrinsically to do with the past historical reality of how much measurable thermal energy is
represented by the melting. One act is historically past and the second act may never occur.
This computation stands unimpeached regardless of the second act occuring or not:
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
>>The fact is the original computations stand, based on the melting of
>>38,000 square miles by 3 meters deep of freshwater ice. You take the end
>>of the world as a spectator sport and do little or nothing over the
>>years to either demonstrate the crisis exists or the paths of action
>>suggested by the facts. Instead you attack proper calculations which you
>>negligently never computed yourself, and falsely label the accurate
>>computations as troll.
>
> I have no capacity to demonstrate anything in meteorology or the
> atmospheric sciences. Neither do you, oh Troll of Many Names.
Physics is not such a mystery. 79.72 calories required to melt a gram of water-ice.
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
Snipped a bunch of obfuscating crap...
The heat energy required to melt the ice is 2.295936e16 calories.
2.295936e16 calories = 26701.74 gigawatt-hours of heat energy
2.295936e16 calories = 9.11101e+013 BTUs = 91,110,100,000,000 BTU
2.295936e16 calories = 9.612625e+010 megajoules = 96,126,250,000 MJ
This is historical fact, not future prediction.
Eric Swanson
spampos...@comcast.net says...
>
>Eric Swanson wrote:
>
>> I used the clear sky curve, Figure 4, not the calculated values in table
>> 5. When the sky is clear, the insolation is greatest. Under overcast
>> skys, the albedo is low, as would be expected, but this represents a
>> rather small amount of energy as compared with clear sky conditions,
>> don't you think?
>
>I'd look at the measured energy and cross reference with sky conditions.
>For example:
>
>http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/np2005/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
Yes, that would be ideal. Notice that the data was collected as the buoy at
the Borneo site traveled from near the NP all the way thru the Fram Strait
and into the GIN during the period of the graph (April 2005 to Jan 2006).
The graph needs to be adjusted for latitude vs date, don't you think??
The data from this year's deployment shows similar movement underway:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/gallery_np_weatherdata.html
Note also that the radiometer probably measures both direct and diffuse energy,
including some back scattering from upwelling SW reflected from the ice.
There are instruments which can track the sun and measure the direct component,
but I would think this sort of device would be difficult to implement under
Arctic conditions. With any of these instruments, it would be important to
keep the instrument aligned with the horizontal. Some of the web cam pictures
indicate the buoy with the camera has tilted.
>> The albedo value at 80N for July is given as 0.09, which is rather
>> small given that the sun is already beginning to sink and the sun is at
>> it's highest elevation for only a few hours of the 24 that the sun is
>> above the horizon. Using a monthly valus might be appropriate when one
>> is working with monthly averaged insolation at the surface, but the
>> instantanious value could be quite different. I think it's not
>> appropriate to use these values in a AOCGCM experiment, where the
>> cloudyness and atmospheric transmission are calculated with time.
>
>For a BOE calculation, the monthly value is probably close enough, unless
>it was calculated incorrectly.
I doubt that BOE calculations would be acceptable these days.
>>>> So, we find that the simplistic 5% vs 90% water to sea-ice albedo
>>>> variation isn't so simple.
>>>
>>>The comment that started this was a simplistic 10% vs 80%. I'd agree
>>>80% is probably a bit high, even for multiyear ice, and that it is not
>>>as simple as was stated. But the effect exists, and is partially
>>>responsible for polar amplification of climate change.
>>
>> I never claimed there was no amplification, just that it was not as
>> large as some of the more vocal commentators have repeatedly expressed.
>
>So then complain about the number in most in error, in this case the 80%.
I have done so, numerous times.
Eric Swanson
Exxon_Seri...@RacketeersR.US says...
>
>swa...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote in
>> Exxon_Seri...@RacketeersR.US says...
>>>swa...@NoScrewingAround.net (Eric Swanson) wrote
>>>> Exxon_Seri...@RacketeersR.US says...
>>>>>That's why ZERO DEGREES exists on the Farenheit scale -- it's the
>>>>>temperature where seat water freezes, and it's 32 degrees farenheit
>>>>>lower than the freezing temperature of fresh salt-free water. That's
>>>>>why we sprinkle salt on icy roads you know.
>>>>
>>>> While it's true that brine freezes at a low temperature, the amount of
>>>> salt in the oceans is not emough to depress the freezing point all the
>>>> way to zero Fahrenheit. Sea water freezes at about -2.0 C, depending
>>>> on the salinity at a particular location.
See next comment
[cut]
>> Sigh. The troll of many names still doesn't understand phase change.
>> Sea water with a salinity of about 35 psu freezes at at about -2.0 C.
>> No question about that fact. The air temperature required for this to
>> occur is a different issue, involving the time for the process to
>> happen.
>
>
>I understand that exactly 79 plus a fraction calories per gram must be ejected
for water to fuse as solid -- the
>heat of fusion. There is no argument from you over the number. You just make
unverified claims that it is
>more mysterious than that.
>
>You don't quantify anything, say "here is the correct number" in place of an
incorrect one. I never mind
>being corrected. That's not what you do -- you cast aspersions that there's
something not correct but are
>unable to state what the alternative correct number might be, or post you
reasoning. My assumptions were
>posted, the math was included.
[cut]
>It has no quibble in it of the salt brine freezing point because it describes
freshwater MELTING. Your quibble
>does not apply to that part whatsoever.
My quibble was with your incorrect statement of fact regarding the freezing
point of sea water. I don't really care how much energy it takes to melt
the ice, since it would appear that most of that energy comes from the water
below anyway.
>>>The argument of permanent versus moveable chunks is bogus. That puts you
>>>into the troll category. THere is no 38,000 square mile hole playing
>>>musical chairs with convenient ice chunks. Your implication is that this
>>>is a normal event in an abnormal location. Nothing in the article can be
>>>construed to help your argument. THe size magnitude is unprecedented.
>>>
>>>Shifting icepacks occur at the edges, not internally in the center. You
>>>lied. You got caught.
>>
>> Wrong, there have been numerous experiments with drifting ice stations
>> and bouys which demonstrate conclusively that the sea-ice moves rather
>> dramaticly in response to wind forcing and that the motion includes the
>> entire area of sea-ice.
>
>It may move but it doesn't melt. Ships trapped in the ice have been ground to
splinters. Some of this motion
>is the expansion of ice over water volume which shoves and pushes and tilts
and subducts other ice without
>any open water in between. You do not concretize your claims with locations.
Ice calving and floes at the
>edges is not the subject at hand. Either you have attention-deficit-disorder
that you vcan't stay on focus that
>this is ice melted inside the preimeter of a vast ice plain, not ice
shoreline, or else you are a wanton vandal
>stirring up shit for no good reason.
The troll of many names still doesn't understand that the sea-ice moves a lot.
So, I will lead the troll to data, maybe then it will find enlightnment.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/Buoys.html:
[cut]
>>>What is the "R" value of ice insulation, anyway?
>>
>> Thermal Conductivity, Ice at 0 C = 2.22 (W/m K)
>>
>> Data for other temperatures found here:
>>
>> http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/ice-thermal-properties-d_576.html
>
>Thanks. From that a variety of scenarious could be computed to figure out when
the proior status quo of 3-
>meter ice pack had been regained. It's only the add-on part, less than 20% of
the whole issue, as there is no
>absolute quarantee that the 3-meter thickness will ever be replaced. It may be
gone permanantly forever.
>
>The future issue of how much heat energy would be injected into the
environment by restoring the ice-pack
>had nothing intrinsically to do with the past historical reality of how much
measurable thermal energy is
>represented by the melting. One act is historically past and the second act
may never occur.
The troll thing asked for the "R" value. I presented such data. The troll
can now build it's own thermodynamic model of sea-ice, if it cares to.
Brad Guth
news:Xns9849578A11A6Th...@62.179.104.133
> > Check out http://www.mellesgriot.com/products/optics/oc_2_1.htm
> > Look for graph of % reflectance vs angle of incidence (use n=1.33 in
> > the Fresnel equation)
>
> This is a totally irrelevant link. The ocean is almost never flat
> like a mirror. Add in waves and your reflectance curve look quite
> a bit different. (This has been discussed earlier in sci.environment
> and I think you can find references to better data)
I totally agree that dark and wavy water is always going to absorb and
retain one heck of a lot more solar energy than snow and ice as taken at
the same angle. I believe the ratio is a good 10:1, if not greater.
Where's the truth in Usenet? All I ever see is another variation of a
Third Reich status quo that's 100% Skull and Bones, or bust. Obviously
there are a few too many tonnes of Usenet bad guys for every gram of us
good guys. What we good guys need is a serious cash of WMDs that we can
deploy against those (mostly Jewish) controlling rusemasters and of
their born-again resident LLPOF warlords that have not shown a speck of
remorse for their past or ongoing actions.
As per ususal, my warm and fuzzy though honest topics about Venus or
that of our nearby orbiting mascon of a physically dark and somewhat
salty moon that's offering secondary IR/FIR and via tidal friction
that's roasting us to death, as well as having been radiating us with
extra gamma and hard-X-rays, though oddly as an honest topic isn't
hardly going anywhere because, obviously others and myself are more than
sufficiently right. As such, here's another related sub-topic that's
worth tossing into this Usenet naysay ring of fire.
What's this I'm hearing from our Roger Coppock? The hell you folks are
saying that our own government and those nifty energy corporations are
liars. My God and Christ almighty on another stick, what is this pagan
global warming world of your's coming to?
Obviously some of us snookered village idiots have been thinking outside
the status quo box, that it's already too late, as they tend to perceive
we're remaining as too addictive to the sorts of energy that's being
extracted and otherwise produced via some of the dirtiest known and
otherwise soot, NOx plus many other toxin producing methods. I
personally think we're just downright greedy little perverted bastards
that don't have a stitch of remorse, and as such really don't give a
tinkers damn about others or that of our failing environment, that's
only about to get yet another slap of extra cosmic and solar radiation
in the face from our badly failing magnetosphere. Too bad our DNA isn't
sufficiently evolving towards getting rad-hard at the same rate that
some of our Republican offshore tax avoidance bank accounts are getting
fat.
The birth to grave cycle of global fossil energy exploitation (including
yellowcake) is basically taking us into that very same grave along with
our past, current and future ways that don't seem to be changing soon
enough to make a difference. Instead of having been honestly investing
in the future of cleaner and abundant energy, we're still investing in
the dirty past that's killing us and most every other living thing on
Earth. At least thus fare there's little if any evidence that we've
made any improvement in the quality of other than on behalf of the
wealthiest species of human life.
I do believe this one even has our supposed environmental avenger Roger
Coppock dumbfounded past the point of no return, thinking that it's all
the fault of humanity, rather than primarily the matter of our somewhat
recently obtained moon as having caused most of the last thaw via
gravity/tidal forces plus having contributed a little extra IR/FIR to
boot. Too bad so many folks like Roger can't quite manage to think
inside or much less outside the cozy little box that has been
orchestrated as though carefully constructed around our dumb and dumber
mindsets, in that we have to believe in anything that's GOOGLE/NOVA or
MI/NSA~NASA certified, and nothing else matters.
I say that's absolutely impressive, and I'd also have to totally agree
that it's all about to explode big-time in our highly bigoted, arrogant
and greedy little fossil fuel burning and soot producing faces, and
that's not to mention the discarded Radium from yellowcake, coal and
other deep geophysical energy resources that's now extensively into our
surface environment along with all of the megatonnes/year worth of NOx
from hell.
It's so bad off that even fish are drowning (leaving lots more room for
jellyfish), yet the mainstream status quo is absolutely hell bent upon
staying the course of those thousand soot and NOx producing lights.
Too bad we're all too dumb and dumber, along with having been so easily
snookered and subsequently dumbfounded by those folks having "the right
stuff", as to even so much as realize how totally snookered and
summarily dumfounded into denial we all are, and how soon some of us are
going to become prematurely dead and/or seriously broke as a direct
result.
The likes of ExxonMobile should be damn proud of themselves, just like
all of those lethal tobacco drug pushers of internal soot and of
numerous carsonagenics that are currently licensed to kill, and there's
absolutely no doubt that as such they're each doing just that while
turning out a hefty and essentially tax-free offshore profit at the
ongoing demise of others.
There's next to nothing going into R&D of He3/fusion energy, or much
less the worth of what the nearby moon L1 of unlimited clean energy has
to offer. Even the superior terrestrial worth of wind derived energy
isn't but hardly a prototype of what a serious wind turbine application
has to offer, and of solar PV plus the thermal dynamic Stirling
alternatives that could easily share the base/foundation of those very
same wind turbine towers is apparently taboo/nondisclosure because,
apparently it's all too squeaky clean and too much 100% renewable
without hardly a stitch of repercussions.
Basalt insulation of R-1024/m that's potentially as structural as you'd
care to make it and essentially fire-proof is apparently yet another
taboo/nondisclosure little tidbit of what humanity and that of our
failing environment is never going to see, much less of extremely
compact hybrid batteries operating on hydrogen peroxide and aluminum, or
by way of better internal combustion via h2o2/c12h26 or damn near any
viable combination (including h2o2/biofuels) you'd care to mix that'll
represent a near zero soot factor as well as zilch worth if any NOx
Phil Hays
> Note also that the radiometer probably measures both direct and diffuse
> energy, including some back scattering from upwelling SW reflected from
> the ice. There are instruments which can track the sun and measure the
> direct component, but I would think this sort of device would be difficult
> to implement under Arctic conditions. With any of these instruments, it
> would be important to keep the instrument aligned with the horizontal.
> Some of the web cam pictures indicate the buoy with the camera has tilted.
I'm not sure of the utility of a tracking radiometer. Looking at the
webcam pictures, much of the SW seems to be diffuse, not direct. Wouldn't
redundant sensors be a better idea, to allow for removing of data with
snow, water or ice on the sensors, not to mention tipping sensors?
--
Phil Hays
Jonathan Kirwan
Spatial filtering comes immediately to mind.
Jon
Eric Swanson
says...
See comment below.
>Spatial filtering comes immediately to mind.
The tracking sensors are used to measure the direct SW in conjunction with
an all-sky hemispherical SW sensor. The diffuse component is the difference
between the two measurements. This stuff has been done for solar radiation
studies for decades. As I noted before, I would expect that doing this sort
of measurement from a buoy would be quite a challenge because of the lack of
stability. Furthermore, the buoy's apparently don't measure the SW in the
upward direction, thus no albedo calculation is possible. I would hope that
direct SW measurements were made during the SHEBA experiment, although I am
not aware of any such effort. I'm sorry to say that I still have not taken
the time to look at all the SHEBA reports. In any event, these buoy data are
from locations generally covered by sea-ice, so there is little to be learned
about the ocean's albedo.
The buoy track data that I found from Phil's site presents an interesting
possibility. If I were to propose further research, I would suggest placing
a string of buoys in a line across the expected flow of the sea-ice thru
the Fram Strait.
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/Buoys.html
Tracking the motion of these thru the season would produce what might be called
"stream lines" for the flow of sea-ice. The buoys would not need to be as
fancy as the ones shown on the web site, but might consist of a GPS system and
a small satellite transmitter that would relay the location once a day. They
could be air dropped along a line, one every few hundred km or so. Again, this
has probably already been done. If they were simple they might be inexpensive
enough to be expendable, else, they might be designed to float as the sea-ice
melts to be recovered later, as their position would be well known.
Here's a link to present buoy tracks:
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/dailymap.60day.gif
Looks like they placed them along 2 or 3 lines in the Beaufort Sea:
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/instruments.html
There's been lots of publications (I'm way behind, as usual):
http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/Citations
Brad Guth
0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)
0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)
Therefore, giving humanity 10% responsibility and that nasty moon of
ours the other 90% seems more than likely, especially since the energy
cycle of making warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is
so freaking horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes into
account.
At most I'd give humanity 25% responsibility, although either way of
being 25% or as little as 10% is still worth our doing something about,
such as cutting that artificial impact in half seems perfectly doable,
and way more than beneficial in positive ways other than moderating our
share of this never ending cycle of global warming, that is unless
you're perfectly OK with your next 'happy meal' being a McJellyfish
sndwitch.
Brad Guth
0.1% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 390 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)
0.01% of the associated 2e20 Joules = 39 w/m2 (plus whatever secondary
IR/FIR)
Therefore, giving humanity 10% responsibility and that nasty moon of
ours the other 90% seems more than likely, especially since the energy
cycle of making warm water to ice and then ice back into warm water is
so freaking horrific, especially if we're taking the km3 volumes of said
ice into account.
At most I'd give humanity 25% responsibility, although either way of
being 25% or as little as 10% is still worth our doing something about,
such as cutting that artificial impact in half seems perfectly doable,
and way more than beneficial in positive ways other than moderating our
share of this never ending cycle of global warming, that is unless
you're perfectly OK with your next 'happy meal' being a McJellyfish
sandwich.
Bob Harrington
news:169bb9f96fc4e2a46ad...@mygate.mailgate.org:
> Earth simply didn't have that nearby moon of ours prior to 10,500 BC
I'll bite - where was the moon lurking before that?
Brad Guth
news:Xns984D7C...@140.99.99.130
Our somewhat salty and most likely icy proto-moon of 4000 km may have
been Sedna like, and simply affected by some other impacting arrival or
greater mascon encounter as having a sufficient influence, that would
have caused the orbital diversion, such as via the Sirius star/solar
system which I believe gets visited by our solar system roughly every
105,000 years (more frequently in the distent past).
Obviously something if not several extremely large items had impacted
our moon, and quite possibly there's at least one such impact that may
have left it's mark in Earth as perhaps representing the arctic ocean
basin.
All I can say with any reasonable certainty is that our moon wasn't with
us as of prior to 10,500 BC.
Eric Swanson
says...
>
>In article <nqsmh2lvkjsddnsdn...@4ax.com>,
jki...@easystreet.com
>says...
>>
>>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:20:18 -0700, Phil Hays
>><spampos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>I'm not sure of the utility of a tracking radiometer. Looking at the
>>>webcam pictures, much of the SW seems to be diffuse, not direct. Wouldn't
>>>redundant sensors be a better idea, to allow for removing of data with
>>>snow, water or ice on the sensors, not to mention tipping sensors?
>
>See comment below.
>
>>Spatial filtering comes immediately to mind.
>
>The tracking sensors are used to measure the direct SW in conjunction with
>an all-sky hemispherical SW sensor. The diffuse component is the difference
>between the two measurements. This stuff has been done for solar radiation
>studies for decades. As I noted before, I would expect that doing this sort
>of measurement from a buoy would be quite a challenge because of the lack of
>stability. Furthermore, the buoy's apparently don't measure the SW in the
>upward direction, thus no albedo calculation is possible. I would hope that
>direct SW measurements were made during the SHEBA experiment, although I am
>not aware of any such effort.
After Phil's prodding, I looked around a bit for SHEBA information. Here is
a description of the SHEBA radiometers and some discussion of how they were
actually used. Note the pictures of the instruments and the site....
http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rtf/projects/sheba/rad.isff.html
Brad Guth
"28 million tons of TNT set to blast" is worth our keeping an eye upon,
and hoping the hell that it's going to get somewhat evenly spread out
over time and area rather than concentrated anywhere near to wherever I
happen to be.
What do you think about the 0.01% of 2e20 joules that's mascon/tidal
contributed into our humanly polluted environment every second of each
and every day? (I believe that's only 39 j/m2, or 0.1% becomes worth 390
j/m2, times 31.536e6 seconds/year seems an even much larger global
warming bang)
In order to honestly discuss the ongoing planetology of whatever's true
geological science and thereby having an appreciation as to the
physiological impact worth of our moon having somewhat recently added
it's arrival trauma plus a few spare teratonnes worth of it's salty ice,
and the subsequent mascon/tidal forces plus otherwise having been global
warming us ever since the last ice age, one obviously has to put up with
the continual mainstream gauntlet of intellectual naysayism flak, as
offered by the incest mutations that's deeply invested into this
anti-think-tank of a naysay Usenet from their MI/NSA and 'Skull and
Bones' infomercial hell. Of course anyone on the side of common reason
and perfectly deductive truth gets by default marked as being insane, or
that of a terrorist hiding the likes of WMD and Usama bin Laden.
So be it; It's a few nasty Jews that are trying their best at being
bigger than life, plus the Pope that's against all the rest of us
village idiots and infidels that are acting suspiciously Cathar like.
MANKIND IS THE LOWEST FORM OF INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE !!!
~~ Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ~~
http://www.gatago.com/fr/soc/economie/13500791.html
"and that Humanity is a complete embarrassment to all the superior
Beings all the way to Sirius ß", and I'd have to say at least and then
some.
I'd have to agree with Sir Jean-Paul Turcaud that it's highly unlikely
there's a more dumb and dumber nor more lethal species of systematically
dumbfounded intelligence to be found within the entire universe, than
right here on good old Earth.
If Earth is supposedly of 4.5 billion and the universe is of 14 billions
(going off in all directions and that's not even including whatever
cosmic cycles, such as the 225 million year galactic clock of our very
own Milky Way).
http://www.edpsciences.org/papers/aa/abs/press-releases/PR20030959/PR20030959.html
"The last orbit of the observed stars in their motion around the
Galactic Centre (GC). Each orbit takes about 225 million years. The
movie shows that the stars have travelled extensively in the disk of the
Milky Way before converging into the small volume where we observe them
today. The Sun is marked by a blue dot; its orbit by the white curve."
In which case there's a good 10 billion of years for other civilizations
of higher evolved species and/or of whatever ET/4H intelligently
designed hybrid species having become more intellectually and
scientifically advanced than that of our highly bigoted pile of DNA
crapolla that's as dumb as rocks that'll obviously believe in anything
currently perpetrated by their social/religious cultism, rather than
accepting the geological and biological truth that's been before their
own dumbfounded eyes, banishing the likes of Ed Conrad, Sir Jean-Paul
Turcaud and myself as though allowing yet another human sacrifice to
their pagan god(s) is but their one and only alternative. No wonder the
likes of even a perfectly good jewboy like Jesus Christ got put on a
stick at the request of their own kind, and that similar Cathars got
summarily exterminated at the bloody hands of a highly bigoted and
obviously greedy Pope. So where's their outer limit as to whatever's
next on their agenda.
All I've seen within Usenet and of whatever's getting mainstream
published and thereby having been institutionally promoted, are the boat
loads of the socially cultivated and religiously molded souls of
bigotry, arrogance and above all else is good old reliable greed and/or
the power taken by those intent upon controlling all that's possible,
and that obviously has to include a good portion of the atheistic
born-again collectives of pagan souls having made their own rules of war
and of their conditional laws in order to suit their infomercial history
and infomercial science, whereas I've seen more than my fair share of
such perpetrators as liars that only beget other lies upon lies in order
to suit their naysayism and of their ulterior motives and hidden
agendas, whereas no amount of collateral damage and carnage upon the
innocent seems unworthy of accomplishing their ultimate quest, and I
believe we're talking of where remorse isn't even the slightest part of
their bible/koran.
Such intellectual fornacating as based upon whatever suits their
mainstream status quo is about all that actually matters. For others
and myself to be suggesting that the regular laws of physics and of the
best available science having anything to do with an icy proto-moon
giving Earth a sucker punch as of roughly 9,706 BC (11,700 years ago),
that's suggesting all of geological hell broke lose upon Earth shortly
thereafter, and that for a good century of most life having to recover
from that horrific trauma of such an icy moon having impacted Earth, as
would be expected is obviously asking too much from such a closed
mindset that's too dumbfounded to save their own butts and much less
their own world from their own kind.
Suggesting any notions that an icy proto-moon as having provided an
ideal interstellar transporter on behalf ET/panspermia, such as that of
having accommodated the Dropas/Dzopas, is clearly outside of Usenet's
outer limits of what can even get openly discussed as an honest what-if.
~~ Ignorance Is The Cosmic Sin, The One Never Forgiven ~~ isn't even
representing the tip of the intellectual incest iceberg of most
terrestrial life as we know it, especially of that within this naysay
Usenet of all that's infomercial and that which otherwise sucks and
blows.