Global warming traps scientists in ice

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Hey, look at the bright side.

Maybe they'll run out of food and the passengers will have to eat the climate scientists.

Not sure about the climate scientists, but if it was a Greenpeace boat the crew would be doomed. There is not a lot of meat on the bones of those Greenpeace fruitcakes.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[kallend 1,683]

Iago

******I've already written I blame the captain first and foremost.

Ha. A fair reading of your post #8 is that, while you did blame him, you didn't blame him first and foremost.

Anyhow, it's never the captain who dies - it's always the nameless crewman in a red shirt.

Hey, look at the bright side.

Maybe they'll run out of food and the passengers will have to eat the climate scientists.

The crew states they have food for 8 weeks. Then Donner Party will have to wait.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jakee 1,280]

lawrocket

(4) Your theory is at odds with the consensus. [Url]http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/warm-ocean-rapidly-melting-antarctic-ice-shelf-from-below/[/url]

Key phrase: ""The satellite data told us where to go, helped guide us and it told us in broad brush strokes that this part of West Antarctica was changing a lot"

Using this study of a local phenomenon to rebuff Kallend's point about a general mechanism of sea ice formation clearly indicates to me that you've made your mind up to disagree and you're casting around for any supporting information.

Quote

Note that NASA itself alleges that the ocean is not freezing runoff. Rather, that the warming sea water is melting the existing ice. This was three months ago, where shelf ice (not one of the land-based ice shelfs) was melting because the sea water was too warm. How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there? I don't have an answer, but the science apparently isn't settled.

You don't have an answer? Try remembering that oceans have currents. Try looking up the phrase "thermocline". Try reading the part of the article that spells out the mechanism by which some weather conditions can push cold layers of surface water away from the ice shelf and allow warmer currents access to the ice.

Try thinking about that for three minutes and see if you can answer the question of why some parts of the ocean are warmer than others.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

Oceans have currents? And what's this thermocline thingy to which you refer? And - three minutes of thought is a pretty tall order.

All my thinking does is lead me to conclude that you've got a hard-on for demonstrating your comparative intellectual superiority for some odd reason.

Now, what is this about "oceans have currents?" Currents are grape-like fruits that make mighty fine flavoring for sloe gin.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

And - three minutes of thought is a pretty tall order.

Evidently. But try it anyway, and you'll see why your initial interpretation was wrong.

Quote

All my thinking does is lead me to conclude that you've got a hard-on for demonstrating your comparative intellectual superiority for some odd reason.

I've got a hard on for demonstrating your bias. Particularly so because your default position on this topic is that everyone else is biased. Look, you're a lawyer: I would assume that part of your job and a large part of your studies would have involved learning how to read statements and documents to find the important, relevant information they contain. So how is it you got that article so wrong if not as a result of your bias?

You appear to want to be seen as the voice of reason when it comes to global warming. Read this paragraph "Strong westerly winds push the frigid top water layer of the Southern Ocean away from land, which allows deeper, warmer water to raise and spill over the border of the Antarctic continental shelf. Since the weight of land ice tilts the continental shelf inland, streams of warm water can travel all the way to the ice shelf's grounding line, where they melt the ice. The resulting warm, fresh melt water rises against the underside of the ice shelf along the length of the ice shelf and carves melt channels that look like inverted river valleys." and see if you can admit how unreasonable your question "How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there?" is.

Quote

Now, what is this about "oceans have currents?" Currents are grape-like fruits that make mighty fine flavoring for sloe gin.

That's a currant but hey, whether you answer my question or keep dodging then either way it makes it pretty obvious that you know you're wrong.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

jakee

Quote

And - three minutes of thought is a pretty tall order.

Evidently. But try it anyway, and you'll see why your initial interpretation was wrong.

Quote

All my thinking does is lead me to conclude that you've got a hard-on for demonstrating your comparative intellectual superiority for some odd reason.

I've got a hard on for demonstrating your bias. Particularly so because your default position on this topic is that everyone else is biased. Look, you're a lawyer: I would assume that part of your job and a large part of your studies would have involved learning how to read statements and documents to find the important, relevant information they contain. So how is it you got that article so wrong if not as a result of your bias?

You appear to want to be seen as the voice of reason when it comes to global warming. Read this paragraph "Strong westerly winds push the frigid top water layer of the Southern Ocean away from land, which allows deeper, warmer water to raise and spill over the border of the Antarctic continental shelf. Since the weight of land ice tilts the continental shelf inland, streams of warm water can travel all the way to the ice shelf's grounding line, where they melt the ice. The resulting warm, fresh melt water rises against the underside of the ice shelf along the length of the ice shelf and carves melt channels that look like inverted river valleys." and see if you can admit how unreasonable your question "How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there?" is.

Quote

Now, what is this about "oceans have currents?" Currents are grape-like fruits that make mighty fine flavoring for sloe gin.

That's a currant but hey, whether you answer my question or keep dodging then either way it makes it pretty obvious that you know you're wrong.

Hey thanks
You now understand that the forces that make ice come and go. are here regardless of the claims of the alarmists

You are making progress

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[lawrocket 3]

Yes, I am biased on the subject. Just like you. Everybody has biases. The issue is that you think your bias is the right bias and I think my bias is correct. I've stated my position and biases. It's pretty well known where I stand on the climate issue. I simply happen to be someone who has spent the better part of a decade reading a lot about this in reaching my conclusion that global warming is real, humans play a role in it, but whatever warming occurs will be marginal, well within the ability of people to adapt, and that benefits will balance out the costs.

Quote

and see if you can admit how unreasonable your question "How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there?"

Did you see the graph I posted about the ice extent? You are right - there IS a mechanism where warm water can melt local ice in certain spots. But I pointed out (and you know this) that the ice extent in the Antarctic seas is higher now than has been recorded.

At this point, I'm doing little else but point out what an insulting ass you've been. Seriously - the majority of what you've posted has been nonsense like asking whether I've heard of ocean currents. Or actually pointing out your opinion of my stupidity.

I finally responded to it with some moves of my own. DO you realy think I don't know what ocean currents are? Or what a thermocline is? No, you didn't. But you decided to approach it in the fashion of putting forth ridiculous questions.

I am a lawyer. My job is to look at evidence and then argue and spin it. I know pettifoggery when I see it. And what I'm seeing is rather unskilled versions of little more than ad hominem. I've finally responded to it.

So yes, I have called you out and taken this to a place I've been avoiding. I took the bait. But with the ridiculously insulting shit you were putting out, hell, I'll go with it.

Yes, they are "Currants" and not "currents." You seemed irritated by my response to a question that was insulting and demeaning by its nature. You're too smart and too articulate to pull that stuff.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

But I pointed out (and you know this) that the ice extent in the Antarctic seas is higher now than has been recorded.

Yes, and Kallend pointed out why that can be a symptom of warming conditions, in response to which you posted the article in question and took its conclusions completely out of context in an unsuccessful effort to rebut Kallends argument.

What could possibly have made you think I'd forgotten why we were having this conversation?

Quote

I finally responded to it with some moves of my own. DO you realy think I don't know what ocean currents are? Or what a thermocline is? No, you didn't. But you decided to approach it in the fashion of putting forth ridiculous questions.

No, I didn't. It's perfectly obvious you know those things, which makes it perfectly obvious that you were deliberately misinterpreting the article in line with your own bias. What else could have made you ask the ridiculous question "How is it that sea water is cold enough to freeze fresh water moving in but yet warm enough to melt ice already there?"? Why else would you have spouted that line of nonsense?

Either you haven't got a clue, or you were doing it on purpose. And like you just said, the first option isn't an option.

Quote

I am a lawyer. My job is to look at evidence and then argue and spin it. I know pettifoggery when I see it. And what I'm seeing is rather unskilled versions of little more than ad hominem.

And in this instance, what I'm seeing is an unskilled attempt at spin.

And BTW, just like I haven't forgotten what lead to this conversation in the first place, it also hasn't escaped my attention that you still haven't defended your initial point or admitted your error. Feel free to do either any time you're ready.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[lawrocket 3]

I defended the position as follows:

First, kallend's theory is intriguing. I wanted to experiment with it but couldn't really think of a way to duplicate the mixing/non-mixing of fresh water running into a subzero (C) salt water body. This was months ago.

Second - if it is warm enough to melt water to run into the ocean, and warm enough for the water to run into the ocean, then it is likely too warm for sea ice formation because sea ice formation requires very cold air to form. The exception is if there is sea ice blown in from elsewhere.

Kallend's theory, though, is contrary to AGW theory. And ccontrary to the current dogma that sea ice should be decreasing. See the attached - I have a hard time attributing land meltwater to this sea ice extent. I also have an issue with not viewing as pea-brained any attempt to or from Antarctica by sea with this.

And yes, perhaps it's my being just plain wrong, but I do not understand how water warm enough to melt the ice is cold enough to form it. "Oh, the ice got moved there." From where? Off Antarctica. Or, "Oh. There's a thermocline." Really? Warm water layer over cold (I used to scuba dive so I'm familiar with it). Right now there is one ice-free area between open ocean and coast. I say winds probably caused that. Maybe it's an area with a warm current mixing. I don't know.

Point: under AGW theory, Antarctic ice extent should be shrinking. It isn't. It's growing and has been.

I do appreciate the discussion going away from how stupid I am, though. Thank you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jakee 1,280]

Quote

Second - if it is warm enough to melt water to run into the ocean, and warm enough for the water to run into the ocean, then it is likely too warm for sea ice formation because sea ice formation requires very cold air to form. The exception is if there is sea ice blown in from elsewhere.

Kallend's theory, though, is contrary to AGW theory.

Then show me an article that says so. The one you already tried clearly does not.

Quote

I also have an issue with not viewing as pea-brained any attempt to or from Antarctica by sea with this.

Say what?

Quote

And yes, perhaps it's my being just plain wrong, but I do not understand how water warm enough to melt the ice is cold enough to form it.

Are you fucking kidding me with this? I have a hard enough time believing that you're incapable of picking the relevant information out of the complete article but when I've done the leg work of picking out the relevant paragraphs, quoting them to you and you still claim to be unaware then you must be taking the piss.

Go back, look at the excerpts I've shown you and tell me you still don't understand the concept of different bits of water being at different temperatures. Tell me you don't understand that studies of how certain weather conditions can bring warm water to the surface doesn't mean that all the water around the ice shelf is warm. Tell me you don't understand that when the article you quoted talks about certain wind conditions maving frigid water away from the ice shelf it means that frigid water was there in the first place.

Quote

Or, "Oh. There's a thermocline." Really? Warm water layer over cold

Thermocline just means sharp temperature gradient, though I'll grant it commonly means warm over cold. Inversion is probably a better word here.

Quote

Point: under AGW theory, Antarctic ice extent should be shrinking. It isn't. It's growing and has been.

Maybe so, maybe not. But the article you supplied does not support that point.

Quote

I do appreciate the discussion going away from how stupid I am, though. Thank you.

Actually I haven't called you stupid, I've called you biased and implied you're being intellectually dishonest. The reason I went down that road is because you're not stupid. If I thought you didn't understand your source I would have said so, but I don't. I think you do understand it, you know it doesn't support your argument but you're using it anyway because you think you can get away with spinning it to sound like it does.

You said what I was doing was ad hominem. It's exasperation. Exasperation that you won't discuss the material on the level that you're capable of. Case in point, you still haven't directly addressed my objections to your interpretation of the article. What a surprise.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[devildog 0]

StreetScooby

I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[kelpdiver 2]

devildog

***I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

going from 320ppm to ~400 in 50 years represents a 25% increase, which on a planetary scale does represent a "large amount" of gas.

[turtlespeed 212]

kelpdiver

******I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

going from 320ppm to ~400 in 50 years represents a 25% increase, which on a planetary scale does represent a "large amount" of gas.

Mt St. Helens did most of that.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

turtlespeed

*********I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

going from 320ppm to ~400 in 50 years represents a 25% increase, which on a planetary scale does represent a "large amount" of gas.

Mt St. Helens did most of that.



Aw, you're so cute you're almost priceless.

[turtlespeed 212]

Andy9o8

************I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

going from 320ppm to ~400 in 50 years represents a 25% increase, which on a planetary scale does represent a "large amount" of gas.

Mt St. Helens did most of that.



Aw, you're so cute you're almost priceless.

Awwe - - it was a good troll. Hater!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[brenthutch 390]

From the National Sea Ice Data Center:

"While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors"

And to think, the purpose of the irony drenched expedition was to show how much ice has been LOST do to global warming "that is even worse than we than we predicted" LOL.

[brenthutch 390]

"Absurdly unlikely since all climate scientists know that Antarctic SEA ice is increasing, while the continental ice is melting. providing fresh water run off into the cold salty ocean where it re-freezes to form sea ice. Salt and water form an eutectic mixture that remains liquid well below 0 degrees C, so fresh water entering the ocean refreezes."





There must be some interesting phenomena at play. The Antarctic has an average summertime temperature of 20 degrees fahrenheit, and an interior average of -5.8 fahrenheit, (both well below freezing last time I checked).

To sum up what the "climate scientists" are claiming: Ice melts at the interior where it is well below freezing, flows freely to a warmer albeit still below freezing area at the coast, where it promptly refreezes and traps their fellow "climate scientists" in fifteen feet of global warming.

[devildog 0]

kelpdiver

******I think we can all agree that pumping large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere is not a good idea.

What large amounts? The increase is like adding a drop of food coloring to an olympic-sized swimming pool and then declaring the whole thing is about to turn bright red.

going from 320ppm to ~400 in 50 years represents a 25% increase, which on a planetary scale does represent a "large amount" of gas.

When dinos roamed, the gas was at levels that were 18 times or so than they are now and life was just fine. On a planetary scale, these fluctuations are nothing.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[brenthutch 390]

"The "Cretaceous Greenhouse World" refers to an episode of earth history that lasted from about 110 to 90 million years ago. During this time, submarine volcanic CO2 emissions were released into the atmosphere at rates high enough to cause atmospheric CO2 concentrations in excess of 1,000 ppm. This CO2 buildup resulted from rapid sea-floor spreading related to the breakup and drifting apart of the Earth’s continents2. The buildup lasted for about 10 million years, and the ensuing period of peak warming coincided with an explosive growth in the genetic diversity of flowering plants, social insects, birds, and mammals--organisms that dominate modern terrestrial ecosystems."

[quade 3]

devildog

When dinos roamed, the gas was at levels that were 18 times or so than they are now and life was just fine. On a planetary scale, these fluctuations are nothing.

However, on a HUMAN scale . . . that's something completely different.

Yes, "life" will go on. That said, there is no guarantee humans will be able to adapt as rapidly as the changes will take place.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 390]

Yep, that is a real concern. Humans have only been able to adapt to a narrow band of environments ranging from the Marianas Trench to the Sea of Tranquility, from the Antarctic to the rain forests of Brazil, from Nepal to Death Valley.

[turtlespeed 212]

quade

***When dinos roamed, the gas was at levels that were 18 times or so than they are now and life was just fine. On a planetary scale, these fluctuations are nothing.

However, on a HUMAN scale . . . that's something completely different.

Yes, "life" will go on. That said, there is no guarantee humans will be able to adapt as rapidly as the changes will take place.

We are a virus anyway. Let us fade away.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kelpdiver 2]

brenthutch

Yep, that is a real concern. Humans have only been able to adapt to a narrow band of environments ranging from the Marianas Trench to the Sea of Tranquility, from the Antarctic to the rain forests of Brazil, from Nepal to Death Valley.

spending a couple hours in a sub, or driving thru in an air conditioned car, doesn't quite quality as adaptation. Man has spent more time on the moon than in the Trench, yet you're hardly going to suggest that's a sustainable living spot, are you? The reality is the great majority of humans live on coastal lands.

As Quade said, life will certainly go on. But will 7B humans persist in a repeat of the Dino era where new life exploded? Hardly. Even before the meteor hit, the big lizards were losing to the newcomers. And as I recall, we weren't one of them.

[brenthutch 390]

If air conditioning is not an adaptation , please let me know what is.

I learned in kindergarten that Neolithic man (cavemen to you progressives) adapted to climates that ranged from the Arctic to the Saharan dessert. I am pretty sure that modern humans can do at least that well.

Let us not forget that this backfired publicity stunt followed in the tracks of the ill-fated Mawson expedition. One hundred years ago two out of the three explorers DIED. By their own admission, the harshest condition our intrepid climate scientists had to endure was a hangover --a triumph of adaptation by anyone's standard.

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Quote

"While it is early winter in the Arctic, it is early summer in the Antarctic. Continuing patterns seen in recent years, Antarctic sea ice extent remains unusually high, near or above previous daily maximum values for each day in November. Sea ice is anomalously extensive across the Peninsula, the Amundsen Sea, and the Wilkes Land sectors"

And to think, the purpose of the irony drenched expedition was to show how much ice has been LOST do to global warming "that is even worse than we than we predicted" LOL.

You seem to be easily mixing and matching ice and sea ice as if they are equal terms.