Scientists monitor huge iceberg that broke off from Antarctica

[Tonington]

Cold oceans are why poles are deserts. Warm offer up precipitation. Precipitation builds glaciers.

This isn't a new thing. Ice didn't walk there in the past.

Or continue to not read the paper.

I was talking about sea ice, but if you want to talk about ice building, including glaciers in Antarctica, well that is a whole different story and I am happy to oblige. In Antarctica it looks like this:

Ice is not building over all, the mass balance for the continent is down and shows no signs of reversal.

 

[darkbeaver]

Ice tax anyone?

 

[petros]

Or continue to not read the paper.


Ice is not building over all, the mass balance for the continent is down and shows no signs of reversal.

Because the oceans aren't warm enough for it to snow on the polar deserts and I don't need a paper to tell me that.

In case you needed to learn about them and require a paper you'll find it's public domain from USGS.

Polar desert - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tonington]

Because the oceans aren't warm enough for it to snow on the polar deserts and I don't need a paper to tell me that.

The paper was referring to sea ice, which was my response to Walter. You responded afterwards and said then that the ice would grow, though you didn't really clarify what type or where. The paper was referring to sea ice, and says no, the ice will not continue to grow. Then you mentioned glaciers. The satellites measuring ice balance on Antarctica say otherwise.

Which goal are you kicking at now?

 

[petros]

Who cares? We are at par for global and alpine ice which are the reminents of a far warmer time in our recent past.

It's been a week since you found out we're in an ice age and that warming water releases gases not take them up so your credibility as somebody who thinks they know what is going is shot to **** when it comes to AGW/CC mechanisms.

 

[Tonington]

It's been a week since you found out we're in an ice age and that warming water releases gases not take them up so your credibility as somebody who thinks they know what is going is shot to **** when it comes to AGW/CC mechanisms.

I think you have me confused with someone else. I'm well versed on gas solubility. You tried pawning off some weak sauce a while back, but you're apparently unaware that the solubility of gases is reliant on more than just temperature. It's also reliant on things like the partial pressure of the gases above the solvent, and the concentration of dissolved ions in the solution.

You have to know this if you work with fish...yes the solubility goes down when the temp goes up, the solubility goes down when the water is 'saltier', the solubility goes up when the partial pressure of gases increases.

These are all principles you have to know if you are like me and work with aquatic animals that require...dissolved gases to breathe, and if like me you also need to understand how to strip carbon dioxide from the water. Henry's Law, the solubility of a gas in water is proportional to the partial pressure of gas in the air. I need to put oxygen in and take carbon dioxide out. Solubility and temperature are not proportional, but there are tables out there that will fit these purposes.

Now here is some simple math even for you to understand. Carbon dioxide concentration as measured by Keeling in 1958 was about 315. Today it's 401. That's a percent increase of 27.3%. Now what has been the percent change in the temperature? Over the same period, the ocean has increased by about 0.5°C from 17°C. The solubility of carbon dioxide in 10°C water at 1 bar is 1.3 cm^3/g of water. Double the temperature and keep the pressure the same, and the solubility has decreased to 0.88 cm^3/g of water. So to get a roughly similar 32.3% decrease in solubility you need 10°C of temperature change , and we're at far less than that. Two orders of magnitude higher than the 0.5°C we've experienced.

Yeah, I'm not worried at all about what you think of my credibility.

 

[petros]

That's great.

Theres a hoivin goivin in your mavin clavin mmmhoy.

You instant kraft dinner types always forget time. It's well known that CO2 lags planetary warming by 800a-1000a.

Any chance the last "global warming" event was 800a-1000a?

Have a great day Mr. Peabody.

 

[Tonington]

That's great.

That you're no longer ignorant, or that the ocean is acidifying? I'd say yes to the former, and no to the latter.

You instant kraft dinner types always forget time. It's well known that CO2 lags planetary warming by 800a-1000a.

Yes, it always has until now. Something is clearly different.

Any chance the last "global warming" event was 800a-1000a?

Globally? Nope. And besides that, we can clearly show that the carbon dioxide building in the atmosphere is coming from combustion of fuels and human land use changes. If you want to make an argument that human behaviour somehow also is governed by a time lag of a warming ocean and the associated off-gassing carbon dioxide, then all the power to you derpy.

Have a great day Mr. Peabody.

I will! You too

 

[petros]

Your pop tarts are done. Our 4% contribution is obviously overwhelming even though warming started long before industrialization but we'll keep on ignoring it because it doesn't fit in your instant pop tart world.

 

[captain morgan]

Your pop tarts are done. Our 4% contribution is obviously overwhelming even though warming started long before industrialization but we'll keep on ignoring it because it doesn't fit in your instant pop tart world.

I often wonder what contribution was made by all of these actual, ongoing eruptions:

Which volcanoes are erupting? - List & map of active volcanoes erupting at present

Wonder if there is any ghg's in this little, insignificant event

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I often wonder what contribution was made by all of these actual, ongoing eruptions:

Which volcanoes are erupting? - List & map of active volcanoes erupting at present

Wonder if there is any ghg's in this little, insignificant event

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Are you saying that because natural events release greenhouse gases, we should therefore ignore what human events do?

If so, how does that differ from saying that because some forest fires are naturally caused, we should do nothing to try to prevent human-caused forest fires?

I'm not at all convinced by the warmers, mind. I'm just detecting what appears to me to be a flaw in your reasoning.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

I often wonder what contribution was made by all of these actual, ongoing eruptions:

Which volcanoes are erupting? - List & map of active volcanoes erupting at present

Wonder if there is any ghg's in this little, insignificant event

Sorry, I was distracted by the awesome photograph.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm not sure I understand your logic. Are you saying that because natural events release greenhouse gases, we should therefore ignore what human events do?

If so, how does that differ from saying that because some forest fires are naturally caused, we should do nothing to try to prevent human-caused forest fires?

I'm not at all convinced by the warmers, mind. I'm just detecting what appears to me to be a flaw in your reasoning.

The logic is that the human induced emissions pale in comparison to the myriad of natural sources of these alleged 'greenhouse gasses'

The greenie logic is founded on the analysis of a limited number of variables and seeks to assess causation of an observed variance in temps (et al) globally.

There is no 'science' applied by this lobby, or rather, their 'science' (for lack of a better word) is deliberately skewed to achieve an predetermined ends

Sorry, I was distracted by the awesome photograph.

Amazing isn't it?... Spectacular in fact

 

[petros]

I often wonder what contribution was made by all of these actual, ongoing eruptions:

Which volcanoes are erupting? - List & map of active volcanoes erupting at present

Wonder if there is any ghg's in this little, insignificant event

Atmospheric venting is bupkis.
Don't forget the 3.5 million geothermal vents on the sea floor it's like discounting the reality of Henrys law and 1 atomosphere in pressure for every 10m of ocean depth.

But that's science for ya.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

The logic is that the human induced emissions pale in comparison to the myriad of natural sources of these alleged 'greenhouse gasses'

The greenie logic is founded on the analysis of a limited number of variables and seeks to assess causation of an observed variance in temps (et al) globally.

There is no 'science' applied by this lobby, or rather, their 'science' (for lack of a better word) is deliberately skewed to achieve an predetermined ends

I agree with most of that. Comes of the breakdown in the old ethos that scientists deal in facts, not politics.

Still, worth monitoring the amount of emissions from humans. If the natural emissions are taken care of by natural processes, there's always the chance that adding human emissions could overstress the system. Like putting 1050 kg on a 1000-kg test line.

 

[petros]

As long as that 1050lb fish stays in water it's neutral.