East Antarctic meltwater ponds seen for first time

[jc456]

East Antarctic meltwater ponds seen for first time


September 22, 2016

Previously thought to be barely affected by the formation of meltwater ponds, new research has shown East Antarctica experienced large numbers of supraglacial lakes developing during the summer months of every year between 2000 and 2013.

https://www.scienced...dc5fcd24b32.htm

Wow, but heck, it is a big fraud and scam you will yell.

---

No, but you are. You are just a loud mouth fraud.

Matthew's comment is based on long experience with the posters on this board. The odds were extremely high that his story would be called false or alarmist or deceptive. Rather than turn the thread into an attack fest, why not express an opinion regarding supra-glacial meltwater ponds?

I didn't, I merely asked him to explain why that would be at a location that is below freezing in temps?

BTW, does that melt refreeze or does it flow to the ocean? which is it? What significance does it indicate?

 

[hauke]

i m worried

what if this co2 greenhouse effect runs away ?
what if earth athmosphere turns to another Venus ?
240 degrees celsius sulphur and nothing survives ?

if earth atmosphere goes above 100 degrees celsius, no life on earth

im worried

 

[jc456]

i m worried

what if this co2 greenhouse effect runs away ?
what if earth athmosphere turns to another Venus ?
240 degrees celsius sulphur and nothing survives ?

if earth atmosphere goes above 100 degrees celsius, no life on earth

im worried

i'm not, cause you're watching a movie, I'm living in reality.

 

[LaDexter]

hauke,

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

 

[jc456]

hauke,

Why does one Earth polar circle, the Antarctic, have 9 times the ice of the other?

Matt doesn't understand sublimate

East Antarctic meltwater ponds seen for first time


September 22, 2016

Previously thought to be barely affected by the formation of meltwater ponds, new research has shown East Antarctica experienced large numbers of supraglacial lakes developing during the summer months of every year between 2000 and 2013.

https://www.scienced...dc5fcd24b32.htm

Wow, but heck, it is a big fraud and scam you will yell.

---

do you know what sublimate is.

 

[Crick]

I do. I'm very curious where you think sublimation is involved in the appearance of meltwater ponds. Do tell jc.

 

[jc456]

I do. I'm very curious where you think sublimation is involved in the appearance of meltwater ponds. Do tell jc.

I didn't say it was. I merely stated that the dude doesn't know why things happen when it's below freezing.

 

[Crick]

Are you suggesting that the formation of meltwater ponds when air temps are below freezing is an example of sublimation?

 

[Andylusion]

i m worried

what if this co2 greenhouse effect runs away ?
what if earth athmosphere turns to another Venus ?
240 degrees celsius sulphur and nothing survives ?

if earth atmosphere goes above 100 degrees celsius, no life on earth

im worried

What you are worried about, isn't possible.

The amount of heat energy that hits the Earth is limited. Just because there is more CO2 to catch heat, doesn't mean there is more heat to be caught.

This is why in much of the 1980s, CO2 was climbing and yet temperatures were actually falling.

In fact, for much of the 2000s, temps were fairly flat, even while CO2 continued to increase.

The only way that the Earth could end up like Venus, is if the Sun itself drastically increased it's output of energy, and if it did, no amount of controls on CO2 would make any difference.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ah yes, chose a graph that stops at 2012. LOL You really would not like where 2014, 2015, and 2016 are on that graph.

 

[LaDexter]

hose a graph that stops at 2012

Indeed, that's when the Obama Department of "Justice" was told to never ever investigate the fraudulent fudgebaking fearmongers again...

Why did Obama shut up about climate from 2010-2012?

The FBI fraud case he and his party hate so much... and buried in 2012.

 

[Crick]

Your fantasies become tiresome. Your own sources argue that it was a political decision. As is true with just about every one of your theories, the ONLY person espousing them - or even hinting at them - is you. And you have been unable to present evidence to support ANY of them. That makes you a complete whack job.

 

[Andylusion]

Ah yes, chose a graph that stops at 2012. LOL You really would not like where 2014, 2015, and 2016 are on that graph.

It wouldn't make any difference to my point. The graph clearly shows that temperatures went down several times, even as CO2 levels increased.

Now according to the "CO2 drives Temps" theory, that shouldn't be possible. After all, by the standard logic of the day, the green house effect driven by ever increasing CO2, should only be capable of one result.... continuously climbing temps.

Since we can clearly see temps have not increased in direct relation to CO2, then the theory is disproved. Whether we had 2014-2016 or not, wouldn't change the fact that historically the theory is proven false.

This is the scientific method. You create a theory. You test the theory. If the theory is contradicted by the facts, the theory is discarded.

The fact you people cling to this theory which has been proven false dozens, if not hundreds of times, places you more in the religious dogma category of thinking, rather than science.

 

[Crick]

Temperatures have "gone down" numerous times as CO2 continued to increase. There are a number of environmental factors that can overwhelm greenhouse warming on a temporary basis. But the CO2 isn't going away any time soon. The long term trend, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, has been upwards.

 

[Andylusion]

Temperatures have "gone down" numerous times as CO2 continued to increase. There are a number of environmental factors that can overwhelm greenhouse warming on a temporary basis. But the CO2 isn't going away any time soon. The long term trend, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, has been upwards.

No one suggested CO2 is going away.

We're questioning whether it drive temps, which the fact that temps have declined, sometimes by quite a lot, suggest it isn't.

What 'overwhelming' factor on a temporary basis, are you talking about? And how do you know this "overwhelming" factor, isn't actually the driving factor?

 

[xband]

The Sun does not reach the Tropic of Capricorn until Dec.21 but yet there are melt water ponds. Antarctica has volcanoes and one could be starting to erupt under the ice cap. That would be a Wow event.

 

[Crick]

Temperatures have "gone down" numerous times as CO2 continued to increase. There are a number of environmental factors that can overwhelm greenhouse warming on a temporary basis. But the CO2 isn't going away any time soon. The long term trend, since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, has been upwards.

No one suggested CO2 is going away.

My point is that it's something of a tortoise and the hare situation. The factors that we see overwhelming accelerated greenhouse warming are short term. When their effects end, the warming from CO2 resumes. These would be factors such as the ENSO cycle, large volcanoes, changes in AMOC, albedo changes, etc.

We're questioning whether it drive temps, which the fact that temps have declined, sometimes by quite a lot, suggest it isn't.

Two points: the physics says it will increase temperatures and no other cause has ever been found for the observed warming.

What 'overwhelming' factor on a temporary basis, are you talking about? And how do you know this "overwhelming" factor, isn't actually the driving factor?

Because none of them last long enough. None of them correlate with the trend as well. And if it is NOT causing the warming, you need an explanation. That CO2 warms the planet is not an extraordinary claim. That it doesn't, would be.

 

[LaDexter]

The Sun does not reach the Tropic of Capricorn until Dec.21 but yet there are melt water ponds. Antarctica has volcanoes and one could be starting to erupt under the ice cap. That would be a Wow event.

The most active volcanoes on Antarctica are on/around the peninsula, and that is how the "warmers" got a 58F temp reading there.... they cherry picked and measured after a volcanic heat release. Under the ocean water to the "west" of the peninsula is a fault that releases heat too. In 2011, the sea ice was on course for another record, and then all of it west of the peninsula just vanished in June... poof. The same thing happens with Gakkel Ridge in the Arctic, and explains why the record melt of Arctic Sea Ice in 2005 and 2007 was all just near the area by Gakkel Ridge and the NA side was actually normal...

 

[Crick]

Evidence? Data? Published studies?

 

[SSDD]

Mr Beale it was 15,000 years ago, not millions, that we were in an ice age. If you are that ignorant on this subject, why do you bother to post?

Idiot....the earth has been in an ice age for a very long long time... See where the global mean started sliding from about 21C when it got down to about 18, ice started forming at the poles and glaciers started advancing from the south....the beginning of the ice age....which began, by the way, with atmospheric CO2 in the 1000ppm range....and the earth will remain in an ice age till such time as the earth resumes its NORMAL temperature and the ice is gone.