Playing the Glacial Fraud Game. This is surreal.

[code1211]

The cult of Gorbal Warming is a subsidiary of the Environmental Movement, just like the Baptist church is a subsidiary of Christianity. Both cults are founded on their "faith" in the word of their chosen messiahs.

The deniers are the ones basing their opinions on the "faith" that despite the known properties of GHGs and their rise over the last 200 years, we can't possibly be having an effect on something as large as earth. I don't adhere to Messiahs myself, preferring the logic of A causes B, A is increasing, therefore B will increase.

And yet when A was 10 times as high as today, B was only about 4 degrees higher.

The trick in this is not to state the same mantra over and over ad nauseum, but to demonstrate how the theory can be used make an accurate prediction and then to actually make the accurate prediction and prove it over time.

The posers in the "discipline" have never been able to do this.

If they could, then others who are not dogmatically controlled or bought and paid for hacks would accept it.

 

[code1211]

Glaciers come in cycles? REALLY?!?! What would we do without you? Trouble is, that's not the topic. We're not talking about things that happened over tens of thousands to millions of years. We're talking about what's happened over the last two hundred. Your comment is worthless, as it completely ignores the time aspect. Nevermind, the cutesy "religion" aspect! Grow up, man. That tack puts you in the joke category.

It IS the topic. How can you ignore the FACT that glaciers have been melting at a steady pace since the last ice age and expect us to be paniced that glaciers have been melting in the last 100 years?

Are ice glaciers magically supposed to stop melting during this time even though we are thousands of years past the last ice age and our planet is supposed to be warming up?

Man, you are full of shit clear up to your brown eyes. Glaciers have extended and retreated numerous times since the last ice age. It is the rate, and acceleration of that rate that puts the present retreat outside the norm. They have not melted at a steady rate since the last ice age at all.

When Glacier National Park was created, there were more than 150 glaciers in that area. Today, there are only 23 left. And some of those are but small patchs of ice, doomed to disappear before 2030.

Also, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are melting, at a rate that will have definate consequences before 2050.

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing.

Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

 

[code1211]

I guess this is a case of seeing what you want to see.

Look at the 1940 picture. See mountain in the distance on the left. Now look at the 1950 photo. See the lighter line just above the ice. That is where the ice was in the 1940 picture. Now look at that same line in the 2004 picture. A lot of ice had to melt to create the depth of that line.

In the middle, the mountain most distant, there is a near horizontal line above the ice. When you compare the pictures you can see the amount the ice has melted back.

Of course, if you deny what your eyes are telling you, you will see nothing. And that seems to be the case for you fellows. Glaciologists from all over the world have been detailing the retreat of the glaciars for over one hundred years. A retreat that is accelerating.

Global glacier retreat

I dont seem to be able to comprehend your point Old Rocks. the glaciers have been retreating since the end of the LIA and would still be retreating without the added temperature of unknown quantity from CO2. are you saying that we are doomed because of retreating glaciers, or that we are doomed because of the extra melting? the glaciers would still be retreating in either case.

sometimes it seems that you are blaming the retreat on CO2, and that the simple fact that glaciers are retreating is somehow proof that CO2 is warming the planet. that seem like circular reasoning to me.

Were we at 280 ppm of CO2, given the low TSI, the glaciers would have extended for the last 50 years. A decline in TSI while at the same level of GHGs results in a period like the LIA. Instead, we have seen a steady increase in global temperature decade by decade. And an accelerating rate of recession for most of the world's glaciers.

RAOnline Nepal: Nepal's Glaciers - Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over this century

The research is part of an international effort by glaciologists, coordinated by the USGS, which uses NASA satellite imagery to map and assess glaciers throughout the world during the middle to latter part of the melt season when permanent ice is exposed.

Current glacier satellite images are being compared with topographical maps and other records of glaciers from the 20th century. The project, called the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), includes more than 100 collaborators in 23 countries.

"Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding," said Kargel, who is also the international coordinator for GLIMS. "But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces."

The TSI is vacillating in a very high range in historical terms. It follows an 11 year cycle and is on that same cycle virtually unchanged since 1956 at the top of the range. The rise to this high of TSI started in about 1700 and signaled the end of the Little Ice Age.

The disingenuous AGW crowd claims the warming that started as a result of the increasing TSI was caused by the burning of Fossil Fuels which would begin in earnest about 150 years later.

Are you intentionally misleading or do you really not know this stuff?

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

 

[Old Rocks]

It IS the topic. How can you ignore the FACT that glaciers have been melting at a steady pace since the last ice age and expect us to be paniced that glaciers have been melting in the last 100 years?

Are ice glaciers magically supposed to stop melting during this time even though we are thousands of years past the last ice age and our planet is supposed to be warming up?

Man, you are full of shit clear up to your brown eyes. Glaciers have extended and retreated numerous times since the last ice age. It is the rate, and acceleration of that rate that puts the present retreat outside the norm. They have not melted at a steady rate since the last ice age at all.

When Glacier National Park was created, there were more than 150 glaciers in that area. Today, there are only 23 left. And some of those are but small patchs of ice, doomed to disappear before 2030.

Also, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are melting, at a rate that will have definate consequences before 2050.

South Pole Reaches Its Highest Temperature Ever Recorded

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing.

Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

The South Pole in Antarctica has reached its highest temperature ever recorded, on 25 December 2011. The South Pole Meteorology Office noted that, “The temperature topped out at -12.3C/+9.9F”.

The previous record high temperature of -13.6°C/+7.5F was recorded on 27 December 1978.

Also in Antarctica, University of Wisconsin Automatic Weather Stations (AWS) at Nico and Henry AWS sites observed record warm temperatures, although the observations are preliminary and need to be officially reviewed.

Although the temperatures recorded don’t exactly seem like a heat wave to all of us living in most of the rest of the world, it is for Antarctica. The Antarctic Sun points out that the average annual temperature at the South Pole is about -49.4C/-56.9F . Even in the Antarctic summer, from late October to early February, the average is around -32C/-26F. Brrrrr!

Still, it’s got to be of concern in relation to global warming, considering all the other record breaking temperatures registered around the world in recent years.

Well Code, what you seem to be suggesting is that the whole of Antarctica is as cold as the South Pole. So why don't you come right out and say it?

 

[Old Rocks]

I dont seem to be able to comprehend your point Old Rocks. the glaciers have been retreating since the end of the LIA and would still be retreating without the added temperature of unknown quantity from CO2. are you saying that we are doomed because of retreating glaciers, or that we are doomed because of the extra melting? the glaciers would still be retreating in either case.

sometimes it seems that you are blaming the retreat on CO2, and that the simple fact that glaciers are retreating is somehow proof that CO2 is warming the planet. that seem like circular reasoning to me.

Were we at 280 ppm of CO2, given the low TSI, the glaciers would have extended for the last 50 years. A decline in TSI while at the same level of GHGs results in a period like the LIA. Instead, we have seen a steady increase in global temperature decade by decade. And an accelerating rate of recession for most of the world's glaciers.

RAOnline Nepal: Nepal's Glaciers - Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over this century

The research is part of an international effort by glaciologists, coordinated by the USGS, which uses NASA satellite imagery to map and assess glaciers throughout the world during the middle to latter part of the melt season when permanent ice is exposed.

Current glacier satellite images are being compared with topographical maps and other records of glaciers from the 20th century. The project, called the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), includes more than 100 collaborators in 23 countries.

"Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding," said Kargel, who is also the international coordinator for GLIMS. "But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces."

The TSI is vacillating in a very high range in historical terms. It follows an 11 year cycle and is on that same cycle virtually unchanged since 1956 at the top of the range. The rise to this high of TSI started in about 1700 and signaled the end of the Little Ice Age.

The disingenuous AGW crowd claims the warming that started as a result of the increasing TSI was caused by the burning of Fossil Fuels which would begin in earnest about 150 years later.

Are you intentionally misleading or do you really not know this stuff?

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

Why, thank you, Code. I did not have that site. In favorites now. Let's see. overall warmth, 2010 tied 1998 as the warmest year in written history. TSI, 1361.083. Now what other year had a similiar TSI? 1836. TSI, 1361.165. 1770, TSI, 1361.148

How did those years compare in temperature to 2010?

 

[IanC]

Were we at 280 ppm of CO2, given the low TSI, the glaciers would have extended for the last 50 years. A decline in TSI while at the same level of GHGs results in a period like the LIA. Instead, we have seen a steady increase in global temperature decade by decade. And an accelerating rate of recession for most of the world's glaciers.

RAOnline Nepal: Nepal's Glaciers - Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over this century

The research is part of an international effort by glaciologists, coordinated by the USGS, which uses NASA satellite imagery to map and assess glaciers throughout the world during the middle to latter part of the melt season when permanent ice is exposed.

Current glacier satellite images are being compared with topographical maps and other records of glaciers from the 20th century. The project, called the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), includes more than 100 collaborators in 23 countries.

"Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding," said Kargel, who is also the international coordinator for GLIMS. "But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces."

The TSI is vacillating in a very high range in historical terms. It follows an 11 year cycle and is on that same cycle virtually unchanged since 1956 at the top of the range. The rise to this high of TSI started in about 1700 and signaled the end of the Little Ice Age.

The disingenuous AGW crowd claims the warming that started as a result of the increasing TSI was caused by the burning of Fossil Fuels which would begin in earnest about 150 years later.

Are you intentionally misleading or do you really not know this stuff?

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

Why, thank you, Code. I did not have that site. In favorites now. Let's see. overall warmth, 2010 tied 1998 as the warmest year in written history. TSI, 1361.083. Now what other year had a similiar TSI? 1836. TSI, 1361.165. 1770, TSI, 1361.148

How did those years compare in temperature to 2010?

I dont accept Lean's values as fact but if I did doesnt that destroy your case that the TSI has been low and therefore the increase in temps must be driven by some other factor?

global temperature depends on the previous year as a starting point, and thermal inertia adds a lag. the increased TSI from the LIA seems to be the reason for warming in the last few hundred years, melting ice has used up some of that extra energy and has mitigated temperature rise. classroom physics taught us that the energy for phase change in water is more than just a linear line as ice absorbs a lot of heat between ice at 0C and water at 0C, water at 100C and vapour at 100C.

since the LIA the globe has steadily warmed with an element of natural fluctuation up and down. just as you would expect with extra energy coming in and gradual warming of oceans and loss of ice. glaciers retreat, ocean levels rise. I dont see any reason to see CO2 as anything but a bit player in the whole thing.

 

[code1211]

Were we at 280 ppm of CO2, given the low TSI, the glaciers would have extended for the last 50 years. A decline in TSI while at the same level of GHGs results in a period like the LIA. Instead, we have seen a steady increase in global temperature decade by decade. And an accelerating rate of recession for most of the world's glaciers.

RAOnline Nepal: Nepal's Glaciers - Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over this century

The research is part of an international effort by glaciologists, coordinated by the USGS, which uses NASA satellite imagery to map and assess glaciers throughout the world during the middle to latter part of the melt season when permanent ice is exposed.

Current glacier satellite images are being compared with topographical maps and other records of glaciers from the 20th century. The project, called the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), includes more than 100 collaborators in 23 countries.

"Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding," said Kargel, who is also the international coordinator for GLIMS. "But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces."

The TSI is vacillating in a very high range in historical terms. It follows an 11 year cycle and is on that same cycle virtually unchanged since 1956 at the top of the range. The rise to this high of TSI started in about 1700 and signaled the end of the Little Ice Age.

The disingenuous AGW crowd claims the warming that started as a result of the increasing TSI was caused by the burning of Fossil Fuels which would begin in earnest about 150 years later.

Are you intentionally misleading or do you really not know this stuff?

LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

Why, thank you, Code. I did not have that site. In favorites now. Let's see. overall warmth, 2010 tied 1998 as the warmest year in written history. TSI, 1361.083. Now what other year had a similiar TSI? 1836. TSI, 1361.165. 1770, TSI, 1361.148

How did those years compare in temperature to 2010?

TSI is on the rise as it moves through the cycle.

The increase in TSI reached the peaks of today starting around the late 50's, early 60's. That's when the warming took hold.

The TSI peak in the late 70's stayed pretty low by comparison and the weekly news rags started predicting a new ice age.

Following that the peaks again returned to the levels of today and the warming has been constant. As we move toward the peak in this cycle, the warming should maintain as it has when the TSI is at this level.

Odd how the gradual rise in temperature slows as TSI peaks lower even though the CO2 moves upward at a fairly constant rate.

 

[RollingThunder]

It IS the topic. How can you ignore the FACT that glaciers have been melting at a steady pace since the last ice age and expect us to be paniced that glaciers have been melting in the last 100 years?

Are ice glaciers magically supposed to stop melting during this time even though we are thousands of years past the last ice age and our planet is supposed to be warming up?

Man, you are full of shit clear up to your brown eyes. Glaciers have extended and retreated numerous times since the last ice age. It is the rate, and acceleration of that rate that puts the present retreat outside the norm. They have not melted at a steady rate since the last ice age at all.

When Glacier National Park was created, there were more than 150 glaciers in that area. Today, there are only 23 left. And some of those are but small patchs of ice, doomed to disappear before 2030.

Also, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are melting, at a rate that will have definate consequences before 2050.

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing.

Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

Your ignorance is showing....again.

Sublimation (phase transition)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.

At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases, the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state. Note, however, that the pressure referred to here is the partial pressure of the substance, not the total (e.g., atmospheric) pressure of the entire system. So, all solids that possess an appreciable vapor pressure at a certain temperature usually can sublime in air (e.g., ice just below 0°C).

Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows a wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state. In freeze-drying, the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow. Ablation is a process that includes sublimation and erosive wear of glacier ice.

Warming oceans could melt ice faster than expected
7/3/2011
(excerpts)
Ice sheets simmering in warmer ocean waters could melt much quicker than realized. New research is suggesting that as oceans heat up they could erode away the ice sheets much faster than warmer air alone, and this interaction needs to be accounted for in climate change models. "Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming, because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," study researcher Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona said in a statement. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

This drastic increase in ocean warming will have a substantial impact on how quickly the polar ice sheets melt, as warmer waters will erode away the ice sheets below the surface. This is on top of increased melting from warmer air in the region. As the glaciers' underwater support structures melt, they lose chunks of ice, which become icebergs. "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," study researcher Jonathan Overpeck, also of the University of Arizona, said in a statement.

 

[code1211]

Man, you are full of shit clear up to your brown eyes. Glaciers have extended and retreated numerous times since the last ice age. It is the rate, and acceleration of that rate that puts the present retreat outside the norm. They have not melted at a steady rate since the last ice age at all.

When Glacier National Park was created, there were more than 150 glaciers in that area. Today, there are only 23 left. And some of those are but small patchs of ice, doomed to disappear before 2030.

Also, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are melting, at a rate that will have definate consequences before 2050.

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing.

Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

Your ignorance is showing....again.

Sublimation (phase transition)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.

At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases, the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state. Note, however, that the pressure referred to here is the partial pressure of the substance, not the total (e.g., atmospheric) pressure of the entire system. So, all solids that possess an appreciable vapor pressure at a certain temperature usually can sublime in air (e.g., ice just below 0°C).

Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows a wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state. In freeze-drying, the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow. Ablation is a process that includes sublimation and erosive wear of glacier ice.

Warming oceans could melt ice faster than expected
7/3/2011
(excerpts)
Ice sheets simmering in warmer ocean waters could melt much quicker than realized. New research is suggesting that as oceans heat up they could erode away the ice sheets much faster than warmer air alone, and this interaction needs to be accounted for in climate change models. "Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming, because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," study researcher Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona said in a statement. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

This drastic increase in ocean warming will have a substantial impact on how quickly the polar ice sheets melt, as warmer waters will erode away the ice sheets below the surface. This is on top of increased melting from warmer air in the region. As the glaciers' underwater support structures melt, they lose chunks of ice, which become icebergs. "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," study researcher Jonathan Overpeck, also of the University of Arizona, said in a statement.

The point in question is whether or not the level of CO2 has caused the temperatures of Antarctica to increase to the point that the ice cap is disappearing at a faster rate. A good link would have been to a site that showed that the current temperature in Antarctica is caused by the increase in the CO2.

If that link also demonstrated that Sublimation increased by a certain amount when temperatures increased by a certain amount to a level still well below freezing, the link would have been even more helpful to your case.

Nothing in the post above addresses the link between CO2 and temperature, the rate of sublimation at various temperatures below freezing or if there is a variance in the rate of sublimation that can be linked to anything with regard to CO2 or temperature.

It seems like humidity would have a greater effect on the rate of sublimation than a difference of a degree, still well below freezing, this way or that.

I've heard that Antarctica is a very, very dry place. I've not heard that Antarctica is a particularly warm place.

Care to try again?

 

[RollingThunder]

The real story, in pictures.

Glaciers Before and After

 

[skookerasbil]

The real story, in pictures.

Glaciers Before and After

OK........we're going to try this again with these fcukking meatheads..................

Lets assume these glaciers are melting faster than me pissing on an ice cube in 100 degree heat and we should be in hyper-panic mode to save the world.

So.......what do we do?? ( or else, this whole thread is nothing more than hobby talk)

 

[code1211]

I guess this is a case of seeing what you want to see.

Look at the 1940 picture. See mountain in the distance on the left. Now look at the 1950 photo. See the lighter line just above the ice. That is where the ice was in the 1940 picture. Now look at that same line in the 2004 picture. A lot of ice had to melt to create the depth of that line.

In the middle, the mountain most distant, there is a near horizontal line above the ice. When you compare the pictures you can see the amount the ice has melted back.

Of course, if you deny what your eyes are telling you, you will see nothing. And that seems to be the case for you fellows. Glaciologists from all over the world have been detailing the retreat of the glaciars for over one hundred years. A retreat that is accelerating.

Global glacier retreat

I dont seem to be able to comprehend your point Old Rocks. the glaciers have been retreating since the end of the LIA and would still be retreating without the added temperature of unknown quantity from CO2. are you saying that we are doomed because of retreating glaciers, or that we are doomed because of the extra melting? the glaciers would still be retreating in either case.

sometimes it seems that you are blaming the retreat on CO2, and that the simple fact that glaciers are retreating is somehow proof that CO2 is warming the planet. that seem like circular reasoning to me.

Were we at 280 ppm of CO2, given the low TSI, the glaciers would have extended for the last 50 years. A decline in TSI while at the same level of GHGs results in a period like the LIA. Instead, we have seen a steady increase in global temperature decade by decade. And an accelerating rate of recession for most of the world's glaciers.

RAOnline Nepal: Nepal's Glaciers - Decline of world's glaciers expected to have global impacts over this century

The research is part of an international effort by glaciologists, coordinated by the USGS, which uses NASA satellite imagery to map and assess glaciers throughout the world during the middle to latter part of the melt season when permanent ice is exposed.

Current glacier satellite images are being compared with topographical maps and other records of glaciers from the 20th century. The project, called the Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS), includes more than 100 collaborators in 23 countries.

"Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding," said Kargel, who is also the international coordinator for GLIMS. "But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces."

Over the past 50 years the range of the vacillation of the TSI has been the highest in history.

We have gone through 4 or 5 complete cycles that are all above anything that has occurred since the Little Ice Age.

 

[code1211]

The real story, in pictures.

Glaciers Before and After

You're being serious, aren't you.

I asked for a link to demonstrate the points you were trying to prove with regard to the glaciers in Antarctica and you give me a series of photos of glaciers in North America.

What points regarding Antarctica are you addressing with this?

 

[RollingThunder]

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing.

Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

Your ignorance is showing....again.

Sublimation (phase transition)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.

At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases, the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state. Note, however, that the pressure referred to here is the partial pressure of the substance, not the total (e.g., atmospheric) pressure of the entire system. So, all solids that possess an appreciable vapor pressure at a certain temperature usually can sublime in air (e.g., ice just below 0°C).

Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows a wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state. In freeze-drying, the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow. Ablation is a process that includes sublimation and erosive wear of glacier ice.

Warming oceans could melt ice faster than expected
7/3/2011
(excerpts)
Ice sheets simmering in warmer ocean waters could melt much quicker than realized. New research is suggesting that as oceans heat up they could erode away the ice sheets much faster than warmer air alone, and this interaction needs to be accounted for in climate change models. "Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming, because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," study researcher Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona said in a statement. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

This drastic increase in ocean warming will have a substantial impact on how quickly the polar ice sheets melt, as warmer waters will erode away the ice sheets below the surface. This is on top of increased melting from warmer air in the region. As the glaciers' underwater support structures melt, they lose chunks of ice, which become icebergs. "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," study researcher Jonathan Overpeck, also of the University of Arizona, said in a statement.

The point in question is whether or not the level of CO2 has caused the temperatures of Antarctica to increase to the point that the ice cap is disappearing at a faster rate. A good link would have been to a site that showed that the current temperature in Antarctica is caused by the increase in the CO2.

LOLOLOL.....are you still disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the current global increase in temperatures is linked to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels??? You poor brainwashed fool.

If that link also demonstrated that Sublimation increased by a certain amount when temperatures increased by a certain amount to a level still well below freezing, the link would have been even more helpful to your case.

Nothing in the post above addresses the link between CO2 and temperature, the rate of sublimation at various temperatures below freezing or if there is a variance in the rate of sublimation that can be linked to anything with regard to CO2 or temperature.

You're really funny, code4stupid.

You asked: "Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?"

So I posted some basic information on the process of sublimation that you were apparently (and as usual) completely ignorant of. I also posted some info on the way the warming oceans are melting the Antarctic ice sheets that rest on the ocean floor. I notice you have chosen to completely ignore that latter info in your responses. LOL.

It seems like humidity would have a greater effect on the rate of sublimation than a difference of a degree, still well below freezing, this way or that.

I've heard that Antarctica is a very, very dry place. I've not heard that Antarctica is a particularly warm place.

Care to try again?

What reality "seems like" to an ignorant, clueless, anti-science reality denier like yourself is of very little interest to me compared to the scientific evidence.

World's largest ice sheet melting faster than expected
East Antarctic sheet shedding 57bn tonnes of ice a year and contributing to sea level rises, according to Nasa aerial survey
The Guardian
22 November 2009
(excerpts)
The world's largest ice sheet has started to melt along its coastal fringes, raising fears that global sea levels will rise faster than scientists expected. The East Antarctic ice sheet, which makes up three-quarters of the continent's 14,000 sq km, is losing around 57bn tonnes of ice a year into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region. Scientists had thought the ice sheet was reasonably stable, but measurements taken from Nasa's gravity recovery and climate experiment (Grace) show that it started to lose ice steadily from 2006.

The measurements suggest the polar continent could soon contribute more to global sea level rises than Greenland, which is shedding more than 250bn tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.7mm to annual sea level rises. Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes. "If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.


Earth's Two Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Expected, Surprising Study Finds
Mar 08, 2011
(excerpts)
The massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that sit near Earth's two poles are melting at an increasingly faster pace, a new study finds. The study, based on measurements covering nearly 20 years, suggests the melting ice sheets are becoming the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, overtaking the loss of ice from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps, much sooner than climate models had predicted. "That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising — they hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers," said lead author Eric Rignot, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. "What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening." Rignot is lead author of the study detailed this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The study found that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. (A gigatonne is 1 billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 0.05 inches (1.3 millimeters) a year. The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. "If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007," Rignot said in a statement. Rignot and his team calculate that if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 5.9 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 3.1 inches (8 cm) from glacial ice caps and 3.5 inches (9 cm) from ocean thermal expansion (water expands as it warms), total sea level rise could reach 12.6 inches (32 cm).

 

[IanC]

the arctic and antarctic studies typically have error bars that are much larger than the trends they suggest. the ones that use gravity altimetry are especially suspect because their results are easily pushed in the favoured direction.

 

[code1211]

Your ignorance is showing....again.

Sublimation (phase transition)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sublimation is the process of transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase. Sublimation is an endothermic phase transition that occurs at temperatures and pressures below a substance's triple point in its phase diagram.

At normal pressures, most chemical compounds and elements possess three different states at different temperatures. In these cases, the transition from the solid to the gaseous state requires an intermediate liquid state. Note, however, that the pressure referred to here is the partial pressure of the substance, not the total (e.g., atmospheric) pressure of the entire system. So, all solids that possess an appreciable vapor pressure at a certain temperature usually can sublime in air (e.g., ice just below 0°C).

Snow and ice sublime, although more slowly, below the melting point temperature. This allows a wet cloth to be hung outdoors in freezing weather and retrieved later in a dry state. In freeze-drying, the material to be dehydrated is frozen and its water is allowed to sublime under reduced pressure or vacuum. The loss of snow from a snowfield during a cold spell is often caused by sunshine acting directly on the upper layers of the snow. Ablation is a process that includes sublimation and erosive wear of glacier ice.

Warming oceans could melt ice faster than expected
7/3/2011
(excerpts)
Ice sheets simmering in warmer ocean waters could melt much quicker than realized. New research is suggesting that as oceans heat up they could erode away the ice sheets much faster than warmer air alone, and this interaction needs to be accounted for in climate change models. "Ocean warming is very important compared to atmospheric warming, because water has a much larger heat capacity than air," study researcher Jianjun Yin of the University of Arizona said in a statement. "If you put an ice cube in a warm room, it will melt in several hours. But if you put an ice cube in a cup of warm water, it will disappear in just minutes."

This drastic increase in ocean warming will have a substantial impact on how quickly the polar ice sheets melt, as warmer waters will erode away the ice sheets below the surface. This is on top of increased melting from warmer air in the region. As the glaciers' underwater support structures melt, they lose chunks of ice, which become icebergs. "This does mean that both Greenland and Antarctica are probably going melt faster than the scientific community previously thought," study researcher Jonathan Overpeck, also of the University of Arizona, said in a statement.

The point in question is whether or not the level of CO2 has caused the temperatures of Antarctica to increase to the point that the ice cap is disappearing at a faster rate. A good link would have been to a site that showed that the current temperature in Antarctica is caused by the increase in the CO2.

LOLOLOL.....are you still disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the current global increase in temperatures is linked to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels??? You poor brainwashed fool.

If that link also demonstrated that Sublimation increased by a certain amount when temperatures increased by a certain amount to a level still well below freezing, the link would have been even more helpful to your case.

Nothing in the post above addresses the link between CO2 and temperature, the rate of sublimation at various temperatures below freezing or if there is a variance in the rate of sublimation that can be linked to anything with regard to CO2 or temperature.

You're really funny, code4stupid.

You asked: "Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?"

So I posted some basic information on the process of sublimation that you were apparently (and as usual) completely ignorant of. I also posted some info on the way the warming oceans are melting the Antarctic ice sheets that rest on the ocean floor. I notice you have chosen to completely ignore that latter info in your responses. LOL.

It seems like humidity would have a greater effect on the rate of sublimation than a difference of a degree, still well below freezing, this way or that.

I've heard that Antarctica is a very, very dry place. I've not heard that Antarctica is a particularly warm place.

Care to try again?

What reality "seems like" to an ignorant, clueless, anti-science reality denier like yourself is of very little interest to me compared to the scientific evidence.

World's largest ice sheet melting faster than expected
East Antarctic sheet shedding 57bn tonnes of ice a year and contributing to sea level rises, according to Nasa aerial survey
The Guardian
22 November 2009
(excerpts)
The world's largest ice sheet has started to melt along its coastal fringes, raising fears that global sea levels will rise faster than scientists expected. The East Antarctic ice sheet, which makes up three-quarters of the continent's 14,000 sq km, is losing around 57bn tonnes of ice a year into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region. Scientists had thought the ice sheet was reasonably stable, but measurements taken from Nasa's gravity recovery and climate experiment (Grace) show that it started to lose ice steadily from 2006.

The measurements suggest the polar continent could soon contribute more to global sea level rises than Greenland, which is shedding more than 250bn tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.7mm to annual sea level rises. Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes. "If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.


Earth's Two Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Expected, Surprising Study Finds
Mar 08, 2011
(excerpts)
The massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that sit near Earth's two poles are melting at an increasingly faster pace, a new study finds. The study, based on measurements covering nearly 20 years, suggests the melting ice sheets are becoming the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, overtaking the loss of ice from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps, much sooner than climate models had predicted. "That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising — they hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers," said lead author Eric Rignot, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. "What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening." Rignot is lead author of the study detailed this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The study found that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. (A gigatonne is 1 billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 0.05 inches (1.3 millimeters) a year. The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. "If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007," Rignot said in a statement. Rignot and his team calculate that if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 5.9 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 3.1 inches (8 cm) from glacial ice caps and 3.5 inches (9 cm) from ocean thermal expansion (water expands as it warms), total sea level rise could reach 12.6 inches (32 cm).

Rocks said that the ice cap of Antarctica was melting at an increased pace due to global warming.

I asked if this was occurring at temperatures well below freezing.

You piped in that sublimation is occurring.

Unless you are suffering from some kind of web based tourets syndrome, a logical person would suppose that you were commenting on the discussion in progress. You apparently were not and just decided to post something that was interesting to you at the moment.

Thank you for your contribution. I hope that it has some relevance to something important to you since it apparently has no relevance to the discussion in progress.

Regarding the ocean currents, so what? The ocean currents are another of the myriad causes that the AGW choose to ignore as they trumpet the devastation of the increase of CO2. Again, no a part of the discussion you injected yourself into.

 

[IanC]

Old Rocks and RT like to distract and deflect by argueing minor offshoots. I suppose we all do the same to a certain extent but Old Rocks, especially, finds it expedient to ignore straight forward concise questions. they steer well clear of integrating information into their worldview and investigating whether it makes sense overall. but they sure are good at linking up abstracts that seem to agree with their point of view.

 

[Ernie S.]

1940

1950

and finally 2004

and just for good measure here is a map of the area showing where the glaciers were going back in time.

it doesnt appear as if very much of the total melting has been recent.

I guess this is a case of seeing what you want to see.

Look at the 1940 picture. See mountain in the distance on the left. Now look at the 1950 photo. See the lighter line just above the ice. That is where the ice was in the 1940 picture. Now look at that same line in the 2004 picture. A lot of ice had to melt to create the depth of that line.

In the middle, the mountain most distant, there is a near horizontal line above the ice. When you compare the pictures you can see the amount the ice has melted back.

Of course, if you deny what your eyes are telling you, you will see nothing. And that seems to be the case for you fellows. Glaciologists from all over the world have been detailing the retreat of the glaciars for over one hundred years. A retreat that is accelerating.

Global glacier retreat

It looks to me that the level of the ice has decreased in 54 years about twice what it did in the first 10. If the melt had continued at the rate of 1940-1950, there would be a beach with chicks in bikinis in the foreground by now.

 

[skookerasbil]

But why are all the alarmists ignoring the question from Mr. Leary???


Whats up with that?

 

[RollingThunder]

The point in question is whether or not the level of CO2 has caused the temperatures of Antarctica to increase to the point that the ice cap is disappearing at a faster rate. A good link would have been to a site that showed that the current temperature in Antarctica is caused by the increase in the CO2.

LOLOLOL.....are you still disputing the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the current global increase in temperatures is linked to the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 levels??? You poor brainwashed fool.

You're really funny, code4stupid.

You asked: "Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?"

So I posted some basic information on the process of sublimation that you were apparently (and as usual) completely ignorant of. I also posted some info on the way the warming oceans are melting the Antarctic ice sheets that rest on the ocean floor. I notice you have chosen to completely ignore that latter info in your responses. LOL.

It seems like humidity would have a greater effect on the rate of sublimation than a difference of a degree, still well below freezing, this way or that.

I've heard that Antarctica is a very, very dry place. I've not heard that Antarctica is a particularly warm place.

Care to try again?

What reality "seems like" to an ignorant, clueless, anti-science reality denier like yourself is of very little interest to me compared to the scientific evidence.

World's largest ice sheet melting faster than expected
East Antarctic sheet shedding 57bn tonnes of ice a year and contributing to sea level rises, according to Nasa aerial survey
The Guardian
22 November 2009
(excerpts)
The world's largest ice sheet has started to melt along its coastal fringes, raising fears that global sea levels will rise faster than scientists expected. The East Antarctic ice sheet, which makes up three-quarters of the continent's 14,000 sq km, is losing around 57bn tonnes of ice a year into surrounding waters, according to a satellite survey of the region. Scientists had thought the ice sheet was reasonably stable, but measurements taken from Nasa's gravity recovery and climate experiment (Grace) show that it started to lose ice steadily from 2006.

The measurements suggest the polar continent could soon contribute more to global sea level rises than Greenland, which is shedding more than 250bn tonnes of ice a year, adding 0.7mm to annual sea level rises. Satellite data from the whole of Antarctica show the region is now losing around 190bn tonnes of ice a year. Uncertainties in the measurements mean the true ice loss could be between 113bn and 267bn tonnes. "If the current trend continues or gets worse, Antarctica could become the largest contributor to sea level rises in the world. It could start to lose more ice than Greenland within a few years," said Jianli Chen, of the University of Texas at Austin.


Earth's Two Ice Sheets Melting Faster Than Expected, Surprising Study Finds
Mar 08, 2011
(excerpts)
The massive Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets that sit near Earth's two poles are melting at an increasingly faster pace, a new study finds. The study, based on measurements covering nearly 20 years, suggests the melting ice sheets are becoming the dominant contributor to global sea level rise, overtaking the loss of ice from Earth's mountain glaciers and ice caps, much sooner than climate models had predicted. "That ice sheets will dominate future sea level rise is not surprising — they hold a lot more ice mass than mountain glaciers," said lead author Eric Rignot, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., and the University of California, Irvine. "What is surprising is this increased contribution by the ice sheets is already happening." Rignot is lead author of the study detailed this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

The study found that the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lost a combined mass of 475 gigatonnes a year on average. (A gigatonne is 1 billion metric tons, or more than 2.2 trillion pounds.) That's enough to raise global sea level by an average of 0.05 inches (1.3 millimeters) a year. The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. "If present trends continue, sea level is likely to be significantly higher than levels projected by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007," Rignot said in a statement. Rignot and his team calculate that if current ice sheet melting rates continue for the next four decades, their cumulative loss could raise sea level by 5.9 inches (15 centimeters) by 2050. When this is added to the predicted sea level contribution of 3.1 inches (8 cm) from glacial ice caps and 3.5 inches (9 cm) from ocean thermal expansion (water expands as it warms), total sea level rise could reach 12.6 inches (32 cm).

Rocks said that the ice cap of Antarctica was melting at an increased pace due to global warming.

I asked if this was occurring at temperatures well below freezing.

You piped in that sublimation is occurring.

You do realize, don't you, that anyone can just scroll back in the debate and see exactly what was actually said? How do you expect to get away with such self-serving revisionism? LOL.

Here is the actual exchange between you and OldRocks:

Also, the ice caps of Greenland and Antarctica are melting, at a rate that will have definite consequences before 2050.

The highest recorded temperature at the south pole in the instrument record is well below freezing. Are you saying that the warming is melting the ice at temperatures below the freezing point of water?

* He stated the easily checkable fact that Antarctica is losing ice mass, or "melting", at an increased rate that is contributing to the sea level rise - i.e., "definite consequences", we will experience in the next few decades.
* You expressed your usual ignorant incredulity at the fact that the Antarctic ice sheets are losing ice mass even though the temperatures there remain below the freezing point of water.
* I responded to your ignorance by pointing out two things. First, that not only is there a physical process whereby ice can loss mass even at below freezing temperatures, but also second and most important, there is an observed increase in the temperatures of the ocean waters around Antarctica that is definitely linked to the overall worldwide increase in ocean temperatures due to global warming and this warmer water is causing the faster melting of the portions of the ice sheets that rest on the ocean floor instead of land.

Unless you are suffering from some kind of web based tourets(sic) syndrome, a logical person would suppose that you were commenting on the discussion in progress.

....which I was, of course, as I just pointed out, but unfortunately it seems that a really dense moron like you might miss that fact and might even suppose that....

....You apparently were not and just decided to post something that was interesting to you at the moment. Thank you for your contribution. I hope that it has some relevance to something important to you since it apparently has no relevance to the discussion in progress.

LOLOL....you are such a dimwit....

Regarding the ocean currents, so what? The ocean currents are another of the myriad causes that the AGW choose to ignore as they trumpet the devastation of the increase of CO2. Again, no a part of the discussion you injected yourself into.

Are you really that retarded, code4stupid? You're on here disputing the scientific testimony about the very real and observable loss of ice mass in Antarctica due to global warming because, in your very limited understanding of things, the air temperatures down there are still well below freezing and that should preclude any melting. So then when someone points out that the scientists are saying that the warmer ocean waters are a big part of what is causing increased melting of the ice, you protest that this information has "no part of the discussion". LOLOLOLOL. You poor confused brainwashed retard.