Which Ice is more important? Arctic or Antarctic?

[SwimExpert]

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? The North and South poles have the same angular incidence.

 

[IanC]

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? The North and South poles have the same angular incidence.

Good! At least one person is trying to visualize the question.

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes. The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

 

[Ernie S.]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

Arctic ice is more important, of course! When it melts, gravity will cause it to flow south where it will flood Miami. Antarctic ice is already at the bottom of the world where it can't hurt anyone.

 

[IanC]

Arctic ice is at the top of the globe and mostly present at the summer solstice to reflect sunlight. In the fall it does not reflect the low incident light but it also does not insulate heat loss from the ocean.

Antarctic ice is at much lower latitudes and reflects more incident sunlight per unit area. There is also more Antarctic sea ice than Arctic ice.


Which do you think is more important? Do you think media coverage is conveying a comprehensive picture of sea ice affecting radiative effects at the poles?

Arctic ice is more important, of course! When it melts, gravity will cause it to flow south where it will flood Miami. Antarctic ice is already at the bottom of the world where it can't hurt anyone.

Thanks for the laugh.


Your theory is only slightly more absurd than the sea level rise maps that show areas where SLR has risen 10mm/yr every year for 20 years. Often right next to areas falling every year for 20 years.

 

[orogenicman]

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? The North and South poles have the same angular incidence.

Good! At least one person is trying to visualize the question.

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes. The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

The angle of incidence being the same, it has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is one ice cap forming on sea water, and the other forming on a continent that is 3,000 miles across. More importantly, the circulation of the southern jet stream around the Antarctic cuts it off the from much of the rest of the lower atmosphere, and doesn't allow all that cold air to escape. And that causes the south polar region to be much colder than it otherwise would be.

 

[SwimExpert]

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes.

The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

This is nonsensical rubbish. The North Pole and South Pole both have a latitude of 90* regardless of how much land or ocean is surrounding them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Perhaps you should get a globe out and familiarize yourrselff with the diifferent tilts according to seasons. Also the angle of incidence for sunlight at the NP, roughly 85. And the SP, roughly 75. More light is reflected at the SP. There is also more sea ice. If you are still confused come back with a specific question. But try to figure out the logistics for yourself first. It is really the only way to learn..

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? The North and South poles have the same angular incidence.

Good! At least one person is trying to visualize the question.

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes. The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

We are supposed to imagine how it works on a wrold that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe simply so you can argue that you are wrong?

 

[IanC]

Uh, what the hell are you talking about? The North and South poles have the same angular incidence.

Good! At least one person is trying to visualize the question.

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes. The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

We are supposed to imagine how it works on a wrold that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe simply so you can argue that you are wrong?

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

 

[SwimExpert]

You're starting with wrong principles. Flat out factually incorrect and untrue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Good! At least one person is trying to visualize the question.

Try removing the Earth's tilt and just focus on the incidence of sunlight at different latitudes. The north pole is ocean surrounded by land so the sea ice receives little sunshine. The south pole is land surrounded by ocean so the sea ice receives more sunlight because it is at a lower latitudes.

We are supposed to imagine how it works on a wrold that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe simply so you can argue that you are wrong?

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

 

[IanC]

We are supposed to imagine how it works on a wrold that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe simply so you can argue that you are wrong?

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I'll bite. What does that have to do with ice reflecting sunlight? Do you really not believe that sunlight does not have lower intensity towards the poles because of the angle of incidence?

 

[SwimExpert]

We are supposed to imagine how it works on a wrold that doesn't exist anywhere in the universe simply so you can argue that you are wrong?

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I wouldn't call that a "basic principle." There is nothing really that prevents a planet from having a perpendicular axis. It just takes so much coincidence that it's an exceedingly unlikely thing to happen. Incidentally, both Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes. Each currently has an axial tilt of approximately 3 degrees (or in the case of Venus 177).

 

[Abraham3]

If angle of incidence is a primary factor in the climatic importance of ice, perhaps we ought to be talking about the world's disappearing glaciers and snowpack, much at far lower latitudes.

This map from the annual Glacier Commission surveys in Italy and Switzerland shows the percentage of advancing glaciers in the Alps. Mid-20th century saw strong retreating trends, but not as extreme as the present; current retreats represent additional reductions of already smaller glaciers.

Looks like a good 2 million square kilometers of ice has disappeared since 1979.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I'll bite. What does that have to do with ice reflecting sunlight? Do you really not believe that sunlight does not have lower intensity towards the poles because of the angle of incidence?

It points out that you don't understand science. This is, allegedly, a thread based on science, like the science that the further way you are from the sun, the less heat you get.

I forgot, when is Earth closer to the sun again? That's right, it is when the north pole is pointed away from the sun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you guys don't want to start with basic principles, and then add layers of complexity....well that is your own business. Antarctic lower latitude sea ice has a greater effect on incoming sunlight. The media makes a big fuss over Arctic albedo all the time. I am simply pointing out that the two poles are not equally understood by the public. And you two are examples of how even skeptical laymen are confused.

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I wouldn't call that a "basic principle." There is nothing really that prevents a planet from having a perpendicular axis. It just takes so much coincidence that it's an exceedingly unlikely thing to happen. Incidentally, both Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes. Each currently has an axial tilt of approximately 3 degrees (or in the case of Venus 177).

You forgot one thing, precession.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

I find the ice in my strawberry margarita to be particularly important right now.

 

[SwimExpert]

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I wouldn't call that a "basic principle." There is nothing really that prevents a planet from having a perpendicular axis. It just takes so much coincidence that it's an exceedingly unlikely thing to happen. Incidentally, both Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes. Each currently has an axial tilt of approximately 3 degrees (or in the case of Venus 177).

You forgot one thing, precession.

I'm not quite sure what you're implying.

 

[IanC]

A basic principle in astronomy is that no planet has an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit around its primary. If you want to start with basics, start there.

I'll bite. What does that have to do with ice reflecting sunlight? Do you really not believe that sunlight does not have lower intensity towards the poles because of the angle of incidence?

It points out that you don't understand science. This is, allegedly, a thread based on science, like the science that the further way you are from the sun, the less heat you get.

I forgot, when is Earth closer to the sun again? That's right, it is when the north pole is pointed away from the sun.

Hahahahaha

The Sun's intensity goes from 100% to zero when approaching the limn. In both the x and y axis. And you are worried about a rounging error? Hahahaha

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wouldn't call that a "basic principle." There is nothing really that prevents a planet from having a perpendicular axis. It just takes so much coincidence that it's an exceedingly unlikely thing to happen. Incidentally, both Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes. Each currently has an axial tilt of approximately 3 degrees (or in the case of Venus 177).

You forgot one thing, precession.

I'm not quite sure what you're implying.

The math gets really complicated, and I haven't done it for a while, but the axis of a spinning object precesses based on all the different gravitational forces affecting it. Then we have orbital precession, precession of the equinoxes, and every other wobble in the motion of an object. In order for any planet to have an axis of rotation perpendicular to its orbit every gravitational force in the universe would have to balance out precisly to enable it to happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'll bite. What does that have to do with ice reflecting sunlight? Do you really not believe that sunlight does not have lower intensity towards the poles because of the angle of incidence?

It points out that you don't understand science. This is, allegedly, a thread based on science, like the science that the further way you are from the sun, the less heat you get.

I forgot, when is Earth closer to the sun again? That's right, it is when the north pole is pointed away from the sun.

Hahahahaha

The Sun's intensity goes from 100% to zero when approaching the limn. In both the x and y axis. And you are worried about a rounging error? Hahahaha

Umm, what?