Which Ice is more important? Arctic or Antarctic?

[Kosh]

The magnetic field of the Earth has more to do with climate than CO2.

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

I know what precession is. I'm not sure you're really describing it accurately. Precession of the equinox is the same thing as axial precession. It's just an older term that came about because the first indications of axial precession were noticed in ancient times when it was realized that over time, the position of stars in the sky on the fall equinox would change.

You're right that everything would have to balance "just right" in order for a planet's axis to be perfectly perpendicular. In truth, the axis of any body is in a constant state of change. The position of the Earth's axis is different now as I write this than it was when you wrote your comment. And it will be different by the time you read this. But all that means is that it is highly unlikely for a planet's axis to be either precisely or generally perpendicular. It's not a "basic principle." There is no scientific principle that makes a perpendicular axis impossible. It's just not a very likely thing to happen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

I know what precession is. I'm not sure you're really describing it accurately. Precession of the equinox is the same thing as axial precession. It's just an older term that came about because the first indications of axial precession were noticed in ancient times when it was realized that over time, the position of stars in the sky on the fall equinox would change.

You're right that everything would have to balance "just right" in order for a planet's axis to be perfectly perpendicular. In truth, the axis of any body is in a constant state of change. The position of the Earth's axis is different now as I write this than it was when you wrote your comment. And it will be different by the time you read this. But all that means is that it is highly unlikely for a planet's axis to be either precisely or generally perpendicular. It's not a "basic principle." There is no scientific principle that makes a perpendicular axis impossible. It's just not a very likely thing to happen.

No, I am sure you are getting it wrong. Earth's axis will never be perpendicular to its orbit in it's entire 70,000 year cycle. For that to happen the Earth would have to shift relative to the plane of its orbit 23.4 degrees.

In order for a planet to have an axis that is perpendicular to its orbit it would have to be precisely placed in the right orientation. Even if that happened, unless the planet was a perfect sphere, its own torque will cause it to wobble, thus throwing it off that perfet alignment. Even gas giants, like Jupiter, are subect to precession from torque.

Then you have to factor in all the other gravitational forces in the neighborhood, and even the ones from the other side of the universe.

That means that, in order to have an axis that is perpendicular to the orbit, a planet would have to be perfectly spherical, and remain that way even while rotational torque caused its equator to bulge outward. It would also have to be free of external forces that caused its rate of rotation to change, or that in any way to affected it. In other words, it can only happen in a computer model with a point source gravity that does not factor in any of the laws of physics.

Or a dream. (Sorry, had a flash of the scene from Inception.)

That might not make it a basic to you, but it is for every astronomer I know.

Not a lot, I will admit, but I have never seen anyone that ever dug into the math ever hint that it might actually happen. It doesn't even happen with gyroscopes on Earth because the mere fact that the Earth is rotating is enough to cause a top to precess.

 

[SwimExpert]

I never said that Earth's axis would ever be perpendicular to it's orbital plane. I said that there is nothingg that makes it impossible for some given planet to have a perpendicular axis. Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes as it is, coming in at a 3 degree tilt. I don't know what kind of axial precession and nutation that Jupiter experiences, but if it's anything at all Jupiter would probably have a tilt very near to zero every now and then.

Also, you're over complicating things. For example, about 99% of the Earth's axial precession is explained using only the sun and moon. Free floating dust in the Andromeda galaxy does not have any significant effect on Earth's motion.

 

[Politico]

One has land one does not. They aren't making more land.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said that Earth's axis would ever be perpendicular to it's orbital plane. I said that there is nothingg that makes it impossible for some given planet to have a perpendicular axis. Jupiter and Venus have nearly perpendicular axes as it is, coming in at a 3 degree tilt. I don't know what kind of axial precession and nutation that Jupiter experiences, but if it's anything at all Jupiter would probably have a tilt very near to zero every now and then.

Also, you're over complicating things. For example, about 99% of the Earth's axial precession is explained using only the sun and moon. Free floating dust in the Andromeda galaxy does not have any significant effect on Earth's motion.

And I explained why the planet you are think is possible isn't. I did it without once insisting that you were talking about Earth.

I think you are looking at this the wrong way, perhaps this animation will help.

Earth-Sun Relations

If you show the Earth profile you will see that, from the perspective f the sun, it appears that Earth is perpendicular twice a year.

By the way, Jupiter's axial tilt, even though it is made of gas, is a little over 3 degrees. Mercury, which has an axial tilt of just over 2 degrees, actually takes almost two of its years to rotate.

 

[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?

Figure 6. As in Figure 5 (without albedo), but for June and December. For each pair of lines, the darker of the pair is the June data, and the lighter is the December data. The dotted blue line is the reverse (north/south) of the light blue line, and is shown in order to highlight the difference in reflected solar near the poles.

here is a pictorial answer to my OP. there is much more reflected solar light in the area of Antarctic ice than in the Arctic seas.

the graph is made up from CERES data, and comes from this article Three Clocks | Watts Up With That?

of course it would also be helpful to see the same graph done for March/September as well. anyone who has a talent for R could easily do it from Willis' freely available code.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate science has been correct about both poles.

And asking which is more important is like asking whether mom or dad is more important.

No it hasn't. Climatologists have been catastrophically wrong on Antarctica, and merely totally wrong on the Arctic.

More unsupported flap-yap.

 

[skookerasbil]

One thing is for sure.......to the AGW crowd, the Antarctic is irrelevant. These dolts never reference the Antarctic.


Anybody want to venture a guess why?


Heres a hint >>>


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2012/09/19/antarctic-sea-ice-sets-another-record/

 

[editec]

The magnetic field of the Earth has more to do with climate than CO2.

So it is believed by at least some scientists.

I find this news somewhat alarming,

Forget global warming, worry about the Earth's MAGNETOSPHERE | Mail Online

 

[Abraham3]

And what are you going to do about it?

 

[Abraham3]

One thing is for sure.......to the AGW crowd, the Antarctic is irrelevant. These dolts never reference the Antarctic.

I and others here have referenced the Antarctic on numerous occasions. Melt from the Antarctic is already responsible for a significant portion of our current sea level rise. Additionally, the risk we face if the ice sheet of the West Antarctic Peninsula, which is below sea level, should ever destabilize is severe. We could have many FEET of rise in a matter of days. Worldwide. What do you think that might do?

 

[westwall]

Climate science has been correct about both poles.

And asking which is more important is like asking whether mom or dad is more important.

No it hasn't. Climatologists have been catastrophically wrong on Antarctica, and merely totally wrong on the Arctic.

More unsupported flap-yap.

Poor, poor olfraud....hoist on your petard yet again. Thanks for being so obligingly moronic! This is just one of MANY! Enjoy the suck...you do it so well....


Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'

By Jonathan Amos
Science reporter, BBC News, San Francisco

Arctic summer melting in 2007 set new records

Scientists in the US have presented one of the most dramatic forecasts yet for the disappearance of Arctic sea ice.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'



Now, the reality.....Within the normal range for the satellite record.....well the GW supported satellite record. That actually started a few years before and it is inconvenient to their meme so it is never used....

 

[Abraham3]

From your 2007 article:

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

So don't try to tell us that 2013 was a prediction ever supported by the majority of climate scientists.

 

[westwall]

From your 2007 article:

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

So don't try to tell us that 2013 was a prediction ever supported by the majority of climate scientists.

This is ONE OF MANY silly person. They were predicting the end of Arctic ice long before that. You guys are famous for taking some random study and blowing it up in the media. Need a refresher on that propaganda tactic too? Get real.

 

[Abraham3]

From your 2007 article:

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

So don't try to tell us that 2013 was a prediction ever supported by the majority of climate scientists.

This is ONE OF MANY silly person. They were predicting the end of Arctic ice long before that. You guys are famous for taking some random study and blowing it up in the media. Need a refresher on that propaganda tactic too? Get real.

If it were one of many, that comment would not have been made, so you are simply wrong. Again.

 

[westwall]

From your 2007 article:

"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams.
These other teams have variously produced dates for an open summer ocean that, broadly speaking, go out from about 2040 to 2100."

So don't try to tell us that 2013 was a prediction ever supported by the majority of climate scientists.

This is ONE OF MANY silly person. They were predicting the end of Arctic ice long before that. You guys are famous for taking some random study and blowing it up in the media. Need a refresher on that propaganda tactic too? Get real.

If it were one of many, that comment would not have been made, so you are simply wrong. Again.

I see you're having trouble with coherent statements as well. Best lay off the sauce dude, it will rot what little of your brain you have left.

 

[Abraham3]

This is not the first time you've exhibited the Dunning-Kreuger (?) effect in which you don't understand simple English but believe you actually understand it better than others. And I see you have nothing with which to make any sort of an apropos remark.

If many people predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer of 2013, the author of that article would not have pointed out that Maslowski was well known for predicting earlier dates than other climatologists. I can run that through Google Translate if you think it'd help, though I'm not sure they cover Westwallese.

 

[westwall]

This is not the first time you've exhibited the Dunning-Kreuger (?) effect in which you don't understand simple English but believe you actually understand it better than others. And I see you have nothing with which to make any sort of an apropos remark.

If many people predicted the Arctic would be ice-free in the summer of 2013, the author of that article would not have pointed out that Maslowski was well known for predicting earlier dates than other climatologists. I can run that through Google Translate if you think it'd help, though I'm not sure they cover Westwallese.

You're THE poster child for D-K, halfwit! Yours is the face people see when they look it up in the dictionary!

 

[Abraham3]

And, again, you have not a single word of correction for your misunderstanding. That the Arctic would be ice free by the summer of 2013 was the outer edge of a single prediction by a man famous for predicting earlier dates than anyone else.

And, really, what does it matter whether his dates were off? The Arctic IS melting and it WILL be ice free in summer in the near future. And the cause of that is ANTHROPOGENIC global warming.