Scientists Predict Possible Ice Increase in Arctic

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
A new computer model is showing the arctic ice may be getting a reprieve from melting over the next 10 year period. Even in the face of the good news, the scientists at the National center for Atmospheric Research are warning that the effects are only short term and the ice will continue to retreat is all factors remain the same.

However, Kay noted that there is no doubt about the overall trend. Over a period of 50 to 60 years, the Arctic will lose its ice during the summer.
Click to expand...
 
There will be an ice increase here in the winter too. And when January comes around and I am "enjoying" the sub zero weather if anyone says anything to me about global warming I will smack them with a rolled up newspaper. :eek:
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
There will be an ice increase here in the winter too. And when January comes around and I am "enjoying" the sub zero weather if anyone says anything to me about global warming I will smack them with a rolled up newspaper. :eek:
Click to expand...

be sure to soak and freeze the newspaper in said subzero weather, THEN use it bludgeon the idiot that says anything about warming.;):D
 
With all this ice melting I am wondering why land isn't disappearing like they keep predicting.
 
Well, that is because water displaces the same amount weather it is frozen or liquid.

So even if the entire arctic (north pole, which has no land mass under it) and the glacier parts of the antarctic that have no land mass under it, were to melt, there would be no rise in sea level, since displacement is pretty much almost constant. And I say almost cause with ice there is a higher percentage of air in frozen ice than in just water, so when ice melts, the air is released and it looses the amount displacement it was taking up, so actually ocean levels will actually go down.

Its the same if you fill a glass of water with ice, then with water. When the ice melts the cup does NOT overflow, the water level will actually be lower than it started, depending on how much air was trapped in the ice and gets released.

Basic science. The powers that be (the money people) behind the scientists think the populace are ignorant of the basic law of conversation of mass and fluid mechanics.
 
I am not impressed. I've thought about this before, and dismissed it due to construction costs. Solar is already too expensive to be an economical source of energy. There is no reference here to how much more these will cost to put up. Sounds like the typical environmentalist progressivism that lacks a realistic implementation strategy.

They also do not really specify how the efficiency was determined. How many leaves on trees are typically shaded by other leaves? Like, nearly all of those on the backside are. For a given footprint you may be collecting more energy for a greater amount of daylight, but at what added cost? Total square footage would increase, but as panels overlapped each other the efficiency would drop. The "most efficient" solution depends on the application. You cannot put a tree on your roof. If it is tall, it will shade more around it, do you want the added shade?

Don't get me wrong, it is a good idea... for a 13 year old. Just don't blow him up with unrealistic expectations about what actually works in his subsidized "research" and not in the real world.
 
man, sorry, wrong thread. I was wondering why you all were talking about global warming! :0
 
matchstick said:
Well, that is because water displaces the same amount weather it is frozen or liquid.

So even if the entire arctic (north pole, which has no land mass under it) and the glacier parts of the antarctic that have no land mass under it, were to melt, there would be no rise in sea level, since displacement is pretty much almost constant. And I say almost cause with ice there is a higher percentage of air in frozen ice than in just water, so when ice melts, the air is released and it looses the amount displacement it was taking up, so actually ocean levels will actually go down.

Its the same if you fill a glass of water with ice, then with water. When the ice melts the cup does NOT overflow, the water level will actually be lower than it started, depending on how much air was trapped in the ice and gets released.

Basic science. The powers that be (the money people) behind the scientists think the populace are ignorant of the basic law of conversation of mass and fluid mechanics.
Click to expand...
Correction: the warmers are counting on us not to call them out on their man-made global warming LIES. The planet's climtae has been changing for, oh idunno...how old is the planet??? That's how long the climate has been changing.
 
Given enough time the earth will be much cooler than it is today or much hotter. At any point in time there is either global warming or global cooling. The earth's climate is a stochastic (chaotic) system and can't really be predicted in a short term (short being a decade or a century).

No scientist can tell you what is the exact effect of sun spots, greenhouse gases, ocean currents, earth's magnetic field and all kinds of positive and negative feedbacks. All they can say is that they all have some effect.
If today earth is warmer than yesterday how do you know that it's because of CO2 that was released by humans when you have a system that you don't even begin to understand? And even if it were so how do you know that it's a bad thing? The history shows that hotter periods in earth's climate were the same periods when life was abnormally flourishing.

And who cares about ice in the arctic anyway?
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
There will be an ice increase here in the winter too. And when January comes around and I am "enjoying" the sub zero weather if anyone says anything to me about global warming I will smack them with a rolled up newspaper. :eek:
Click to expand...

I may be completely incorrect about this - but wouldn't colder temperatures around the world due to melting polar ice be indicative of global warming? I mean if the ice caps started to melt at an accelerated rate, wouldn't the resulting surge of tons of freezing water being dumped into the oceans create freezing temperatures around the world?
 
However, Kay noted that there is no doubt about the overall trend. Over a period of 50 to 60 years, the Arctic will lose its ice during the summer.
Click to expand...
Duh. And the Arctic will gain its ice during the winter.
 
stop!theradio said:
I may be completely incorrect about this - but wouldn't colder temperatures around the world due to melting polar ice be indicative of global warming? I mean if the ice caps started to melt at an accelerated rate, wouldn't the resulting surge of tons of freezing water being dumped into the oceans create freezing temperatures around the world?
Click to expand...

You've been watching Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow, haven't you? :D
http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/episodes/s09e08-two-days-before-the-day-after-tomorrow
 
niconx said:
With all this ice melting I am wondering why land isn't disappearing like they keep predicting.
Click to expand...

Actually it is. If you lived in Southeast Asia or Venice you already be aware of the impact so far. The irony so far is the increased in sever weather seems to, in the US at least, disproportionately impact red states. God just keeps trying to beat some sense to you all but it's like pounding a rock isn't it?
 
Thank you matchstick! just one more voice of reason

matchstick said:
Well, that is because water displaces the same amount weather it is frozen or liquid.

So even if the entire arctic (north pole, which has no land mass under it) and the glacier parts of the antarctic that have no land mass under it, were to melt, there would be no rise in sea level, since displacement is pretty much almost constant. And I say almost cause with ice there is a higher percentage of air in frozen ice than in just water, so when ice melts, the air is released and it looses the amount displacement it was taking up, so actually ocean levels will actually go down.

Its the same if you fill a glass of water with ice, then with water. When the ice melts the cup does NOT overflow, the water level will actually be lower than it started, depending on how much air was trapped in the ice and gets released.

Basic science. The powers that be (the money people) behind the scientists think the populace are ignorant of the basic law of conversation of mass and fluid mechanics.
Click to expand...
 
matchstick said:
Well, that is because water displaces the same amount weather it is frozen or liquid.

So even if the entire arctic (north pole, which has no land mass under it) and the glacier parts of the antarctic that have no land mass under it, were to melt, there would be no rise in sea level, since displacement is pretty much almost constant. And I say almost cause with ice there is a higher percentage of air in frozen ice than in just water, so when ice melts, the air is released and it looses the amount displacement it was taking up, so actually ocean levels will actually go down.

Its the same if you fill a glass of water with ice, then with water. When the ice melts the cup does NOT overflow, the water level will actually be lower than it started, depending on how much air was trapped in the ice and gets released.

Basic science. The powers that be (the money people) behind the scientists think the populace are ignorant of the basic law of conversation of mass and fluid mechanics.
Click to expand...


What about all the ice above sea level that is currently not displacing the water?
 
How much stuff needs to be thrown in the face of 'global warming' for both sides of the argument going to be given credibility? I totally agree that we are royally f*king up our environment and soon it wont be able to support the majority of the life that is here today. But there's plenty to debunk this seeming concensus of manmade global warming. The earth has repeatedly dealt with much higher levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere infact if you look at the long term history of the earth, oxygen levels have never been this high before and CO2 levels have never been this low either (not on a small time scale but long term).

Yes we certainly need to curb our carbon emissions and stop polluting if we have any chance of any normal life in the near future but not for reasons of global warming. Rather there are plenty of other effects of our polluting lifestyle that is destroying the very environment we depend upon to survive. I don't think that we should be so focussed on 'global warming' ignoring all the rest or de-prioritising them in the pursuit of combatting global warming. Even with global warming as predicted its not going to be anywhere near the trouble we're going to be in when we've polluted all our fresh water, fished all our oceans, destroyed all our forests, consumed all our fossil fuels, desertificated our farming land.

The global governments are only pushing global warming now because they've figured out a taxation system for it. A taxation system that is heavily weighed on the lowest end of the pyramid... no tax for dumping an endless and constant flow of highly toxic chemicals into our water supply (river, groundwater) that would be anti-business. But they can make everyone pay more for fuel...
 
Has anybody actually done the proper math to figure out how much the sea level would raise IF the polar caps completely melted?

If you take into account the difference in displacement because of the extra air and dead animals, plants, etc. stuck in the ice, I am thinking that it really wouldn't be all that much higher then it currently is.

They are stating 3.1mm over 10 years or so.. is that taking into account all the junk that is being dumped into the ocean as well as errosion of land?

They dump all kind of CRAP into the ocean to help make reefs, ships sink, other trash makes it's way into the ocean, etc, etc... and they claim it is all because ice is melting?????

Come'on people... think a little bit here.. or is there an inverse relationship in age vs IQ for the "Global Warming" phsychos?
 
cyclone3d said:
Has anybody actually done the proper math to figure out how much the sea level would raise IF the polar caps completely melted?

If you take into account the difference in displacement because of the extra air and dead animals, plants, etc. stuck in the ice, I am thinking that it really wouldn't be all that much higher then it currently is.

They are stating 3.1mm over 10 years or so.. is that taking into account all the junk that is being dumped into the ocean as well as errosion of land?

They dump all kind of CRAP into the ocean to help make reefs, ships sink, other trash makes it's way into the ocean, etc, etc... and they claim it is all because ice is melting?????

Come'on people... think a little bit here.. or is there an inverse relationship in age vs IQ for the "Global Warming" phsychos?
Click to expand...

If the land-based ice of greenland and antarctica melted completely then that would be a significant volume of water and would make the ocean levels rise significantly. Not at all comparable to a bunch of junk we've dumped in the ocean, we're talking a much larger scale. Added to that and perhaps more importantly, thermal expansion of all the ocean's could significantly add to the ocean levels. That ice however isn't going to melt, at least the ice in antarctica.. that ice is very ancient, its seen more than we can imagine.. its not going anywhere in a rush.. as for sea-ice... that has no effect on the level of the oceans, icebergs are bouyant because the air:water ratio in the ice makes them boyant.
 
Well since all the real scientists in the world (not funded by the federal government or some other EQ Agency) say that we are in the midst of a global cooling trend and our emissions are the only thing maintaining its impact, and the fact that most of these "scientists" that support global warming trends and the political agendas it drives, dont even know what really effects weather, and thats the effect that solar output and its variation has on the climate.

So anyway more ice plus possible increased solar and sunspot activities next year gonna have some mean weather systems (ie more cloud cover, ie colder temps)

Of course this is just little ole me reading stuff like books and such. I could be wrong
 
Why don't they just put air conditioners outside? That should solve everything.
 
Draax said:
Nope
Click to expand...

Yes. Water displaces the same amount frozen or liquid. If not exactly the same then pretty close, the only difference in weight would be the trapped gasses if they became slightly compressed.
 
Good old wiki:

Although it is believed that the melting of floating ice shelves will not raise sea levels, technically, there is a small effect because sea water is ~2.6% more dense than fresh water combined with the fact that ice shelves are overwhelmingly "fresh" (having virtually no salinity); this causes the volume of the sea water needed to displace a floating ice shelf to be slightly less than the volume of the fresh water contained in the floating ice. Therefore, when a mass of floating ice melts, sea levels will increase; however, this effect is small enough that if all extant sea ice and floating ice shelves were to melt, the corresponding sea level rise is estimated to be ~4 cm.
Click to expand...

^ Doesn't take into account land-based ice, just floating shelfs.
 
gaspah said:
How much stuff needs to be thrown in the face of 'global warming' for both sides of the argument going to be given credibility? I totally agree that we are royally f*king up our environment and soon it wont be able to support the majority of the life that is here today. But there's plenty to debunk this seeming concensus of manmade global warming. The earth has repeatedly dealt with much higher levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere infact if you look at the long term history of the earth, oxygen levels have never been this high before and CO2 levels have never been this low either (not on a small time scale but long term).
Click to expand...

This is not true. Not for over 20 million years.

Yes we certainly need to curb our carbon emissions and stop polluting if we have any chance of any normal life in the near future but not for reasons of global warming. Rather there are plenty of other effects of our polluting lifestyle that is destroying the very environment we depend upon to survive. I don't think that we should be so focussed on 'global warming' ignoring all the rest or de-prioritising them in the pursuit of combatting global warming. Even with global warming as predicted its not going to be anywhere near the trouble we're going to be in when we've polluted all our fresh water, fished all our oceans, destroyed all our forests, consumed all our fossil fuels, desertificated our farming land.
Agreed.

The global governments are only pushing global warming now because they've figured out a taxation system for it. A taxation system that is heavily weighed on the lowest end of the pyramid... no tax for dumping an endless and constant flow of highly toxic chemicals into our water supply (river, groundwater) that would be anti-business. But they can make everyone pay more for fuel...
Click to expand...

Somewhat agree.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
gaspah said:
Yes. Water displaces the same amount frozen or liquid. If not exactly the same then pretty close, the only difference in weight would be the trapped gasses if they became slightly compressed.
Click to expand...

But the polar ice are floating, a large part of them are above sea level and so they do not displace the same amount of water now than they would when they melt into the ocean

bdnnmx.jpg


Imagine if this huge block of ice melted, all those mass visible would have to go somewhere in the ocean.
 
Hornet said:
But the polar ice are floating, a large part of them are above sea level and so they do not displace the same amount of water now than they would when they melt into the ocean

bdnnmx.jpg


Imagine if this huge block of ice melted, all those mass visible would have to go somewhere in the ocean.
Click to expand...

LOL, this is just to funny!!!!
 
If memory serves, it fits the model because the model points to periods of stability followed by sudden melts and the net result will be that by some point in the next few decades, not enough thick ice will be formed that can see out the summer. Of course, this is the difficulty of understanding and explaining climate, as it is difficult to relate patterns to single average figures or trends.

As explained, displacement means that ice already afloat is still contributing to the volume of the ocean and the greater effects relate to salinity and temperature. When the Arctic ice melts, the shorelines will be about the same, but the lack of ice will contribute in other ways, most likely to the detriment of climate stability.

Melting Antarctica on the other hand, where most of the world's ice lies, would raise sea level.
 
Hornet said:
But the polar ice are floating, a large part of them are above sea level and so they do not displace the same amount of water now than they would when they melt into the ocean

bdnnmx.jpg


Imagine if this huge block of ice melted, all those mass visible would have to go somewhere in the ocean.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that ice contains trapped gas? and that the trapped gas in the iceberg is proportionate to the amount of ice above the water?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top