Glaciers melting faster than expected.

[ltdiver 3]

Everyone does their part. I can get behind "Frankenfoods" to support the cause.

ltdiver

Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

You're wrong by assuming a simple linear response for what is a very complex phenomenon rife with feedback effects at multiple levels of derivative.

So, what you are saying, then, is that simply because a glacier is melting one cannot assume the temperature is warmer.

You are also saying that the artocle in incorrect in stating that melting also depends on volume and thickness.

You are also assuming that I stated that melting is linear. For some unknown reason, I thought using words like "acceleration" and "deceleration" indicates a non-linear movement. I attempting to state a non-linear relationship.

So water does not provide a temperature buffer. I thought it did. It takes just as much energy to heat a cubic meter or water as to heat up a cubic meter of atmosphere. I'm sorry.

I also was wrong in assuming that as a ice melts, there is less volume to distribute the heat energy. And that the thinner a glacier becomes the ratio of surface area to volume increases (I.e. an 8x11 sheet of paper has a higher ratio than an 8x11 cutting board).

And if enough heat energy to melt 600 billion tons of water leaves 500 billion tons of ice remaining (factoring in 100 billion tons of new ice added (these are notional figures) in 40 years, one could imagine that in another 40 years, roguhly 100 billion tons of glacier will be left, glacier having lost now another 80% of its volume (90% in 80 years). Adjust that for the heat transfer to a smaller body, but factor in surface area to volume (again, why we bake cakes and stack them because we can't just bake a meter tall cake and have it done in the middle without the outside being overly done. But ice is nice enough to melt away, which takes that insulating layer, allowing a greater percentage to be lost with the same heat transfer as it gets smaller and thinner.)

How do you slow it? You warm up.

When something loses 50% in 40 years, doctor, and then is expected to lose another 50% in 100 years, you are looking at 1/2 the total water loss in 100 years as in 40 years.

I suppose saying, "you're wrong" also operates as "proof."

I get it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Well, the oceans are rising (not)

See attached graph

Quote

20cm in 130 years of the industrial revolution is pretty mild stuff, esp given the more dire predictions about losing cities. The trend line appears quite linear, without indication of an acceleration.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[rushmc 23]

Ouch, that is going to leave a mark.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Hey, it's a good job that there are Sponges in the oceans .... no telling how high the sea level would be if they weren't there

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Hey, it's a good job that there are Sponges in the oceans .... no telling how high the sea level would be if they weren't there

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

you know on a more serious note. I have to wonder about the sediment that is carried to the oceans by the cubic (I dont know what to use here) and what effects that would have on ocean levels over time.

Is there a study? Anybody know?

Most likely minimal but you gotta wonder. Tween that and the sponges who knows what the hell is happening

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rhys 0]

Quote

So, what you are saying, then, is that simply because a glacier is melting one cannot assume the temperature is warmer.

You are also saying that the artocle in incorrect in stating that melting also depends on volume and thickness.

As the arctic ice decreases, the amount of solar energy absorbed by the ocean increases, and In turn effecting the global temerature average as well as ocean levels.

As explained here;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1198500/Arctic-ice-dramatically-thinning-global-warming-warns-Nasa.html

Quote

Satellite images have revealed the volume of crucial older sea ice in the Arctic has shrunk by 42 per cent from the winter of 2004 to 2008. This is equivalent to losing more volume of ice than water in Lake Michigan, the fifth largest lake in the world.

So as the ice melts, the displcement of the water is less, so theoreticly the oceans should be lowering as the ice melts (if warmer temperatures do not rise the sea level as you tend to believe.). If the water is still rising while the displacemet is reducing, then what will happen once the ice is gone?

Temperatures will go through to roof! Remember a temperature change of 1 or 2 degrees celcius is enough to kill coral, change weather patterns and affect agriculture in a devistating way.

but what do you lot care anyway! you musn't have childeren or plan to have grandchilderen, because if you do, you are noty showing very much love for thier livlihoods!

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[lawrocket 3]

I agree.

However, you are assuming that the glaciers will continue to melt rapidly, which the article does not.

Further, even if it gets warmer, kallend says that glacier melt will not continue at it's present rate. A deeper knowledge of differential equations would make this patently obvious.

I, Personally, think that the percentage loss will accelerate if the earth warms. But that's just me.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

You're wrong by assuming a simple linear response for what is a very complex phenomenon rife with feedback effects at multiple levels of derivative.

So, what you are saying, then, is that simply because a glacier is melting one cannot assume the temperature is warmer.

You are also saying that the artocle in incorrect in stating that melting also depends on volume and thickness.

.

No, you know perfectly well that is NOT what I wrote or implied, Mr. Lawyer. Court room tricks don't work in science.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Andy9o8 2]

You two should get a room. You're so cute together.

[billvon 3,120]

>So as the ice melts, the displcement of the water is less, so
>theoreticly the oceans should be lowering as the ice melts . . .

No. Floating ice melting does not change sea level in other places since it displaces exactly the same amount of water it represents as ice. That's why even though arctic sea ice is diminishing rapidly it's not doing much to sea levels. However, land ice melting will increase sea level, since that's water that used to be on land and is now returning to the ocean.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I guess, you don't believe that pollution contributes to the problem?

First it's not clear whether there is a global problem. A couple of glaciers melting does not indicate global problem. All glaciers melting - would be.

Second, it's not clear how much pollution contributes to the problem. Is it 1% or 90%? Makes a huge difference, as if it's only one percent, curbing pollution would help as much as trying to fight the fire with a teaspoon of water.

Quote

But as it does you could start with the development of good public transportation and most importantly the acceptance of using it as a viable means of transport, the USA is heavily developed around the automobile. If high speed electric trains start hauling people to work and between cities faster and more comfortably than sitting in gridlock, or commuting to and from an airplane the mindsets would change quite rapidly.

I lived in a few cities which had "high speed electric trains start hauling people to work and between cities faster and more comfortably than sitting in gridlock". Most of them had pollution levels much worse than Bay Area which has no such trains. In my opinion shift to public transportation will lead to increased population density, which generally increases the pollution. The cost is also important factor - I do not know any commercially viable city-scope mass transit system, which wouldn't be subsidized by taxpayers.

Quote

Our planet is alrady in ruins, how much more can it take before a cataclysm happens that will put us all back to square one.

Same thing has been repeated for at least 100 years. I've read it first while studying the First World War when acid gases were used on large squares. Second World War added mass bombing and destroyed forests as well as using explosives on much higher scale. It has been worse.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

No, you know perfectly well that is NOT what I wrote or implied,.

And you know perfectly well that I did not imply linearity.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[warpedskydiver 0]

I think Kallend needs to answer the Counsel's question without being belligerent nor evasive.

[billvon 3,120]

>it appears to me that the slope of the line has remained relatively
>constant over the past 100 years (yes... I see the up´s and down´s but
>the overall slope)

Right. Fairly similar to both the temperature and CO2 concentration curves, although with less noise (which makes sense since the ocean changes temperature more slowly than the atmosphere.)

>One would think that if it were due to the American culture change with
>what some on this site would call our *cough* frivolous lifestyle and
>cavilier use of autos, then the slope would have sharply risen starting in
>... lets say 1980´s? or maybe even 1960´s?

Why? Our lifestyle was just one of the increases in CO2 emissions that began when we started burning coal in a big way back in the 1800's.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

You two should get a room. You're so cute together.

Jerry is not gay or bisexual.

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

You two should get a room. You're so cute together.

Jerry is not gay or bisexual.

Yeah, um.. I'm sure Jerry and John both appreciate your taking it seriously enough to make that crystal clear.

[billvon 3,120]

>I'm sure Jerry and John both appreciate your taking it seriously enough
>to make that crystal clear.

I think you missed the point; it's a sort of underhanded suggestion that Kallend is, in fact, gay. And by replying to someone else's post to do that, he can claim "hey, it wasn't me!"

[rhys 0]

Quote

No. Floating ice melting does not change sea level in other places since it displaces exactly the same amount of water it represents as ice.

Touche, point taken.

This still doesn't take away from the effect the loss of the ice caps on the ocean will have to the temperature of the planet. Once the ice cap is gone from the ocean, you can be sure a great deal of the ice on antarctica, greenland, canada and russia will end up in the ocean.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[Andy9o8 2]

Sigh. I see. I've created a monster.

Hey Randall: it was you.

[billvon 3,120]

>This still doesn't take away from the effect the loss of the ice caps on the
>ocean will have to the temperature of the planet.

I agree that it will increase warming. Fortunately since the illuminated area of the North Pole is small, it will have only a minor impact overall.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Keep reading into things and attributing your thoughts to others.

I was just sticking up for someone I happen to like as a friend.

He has been there for me when I needed help.

So in contrast to the other person I would stick up for Jerry.

[rhys 0]

Quote

First it's not clear whether there is a global problem. A couple of glaciers melting does not indicate global problem. All glaciers melting - would be.

as far as I am aware all 1200+ glaciers in New Zealand are losing mass, A glacier can start progressing in warmer conditions if the Neve become more liquid the ice is pushed down the valley faster.

It seem more than a couple of glaciers are losing mass;

South America

Antartcia

...

Another prediction is; The melting of one of the world's largest ice sheets would alter the Earth's field of gravity and even its rotation in space so much that it would cause sea levels along some coasts to rise faster than the global average .

This would affect north america more than the rest of the world as explained in this publication

there are plenty of theories, most of which conclude a negative impact the earth as we know it.

It seems quite selfish to me that the deniers use thier belief as an excuse to keep belching out as much Co2 as they can, while making the efforts of those that care almost pointless.

Quote

Most of them had pollution levels much worse than Bay Area which has no such trains. In my opinion shift to public transportation will lead to increased population density, which generally increases the pollution.

So you're trying to say that more densly populated areas are worse for the envirionment than everyone living on a 1/4 acre section?

How so? there may be an increase in pollution per metre in a densly populated area but compare that to the pollution created but the same amount of people spread out over the area it would take to house them in a suburban environmnt.

Quote

Same thing has been repeated for at least 100 years. I've read it first while studying the First World War when acid gases were used on large squares. Second World War added mass bombing and destroyed forests as well as using explosives on much higher scale. It has been worse.

Are you including the rate of population increase. look at the population today as opposed to 100 years ago. There are so many factors involved, we are slowly geting better at being enviromentaly friendly but we 'all' need to acknowledge the impact we are having on our fragile ecosystems that we 'all' depend so greatly on, whether we wish to acknowledge it or not.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It seems quite selfish to me that the deniers use thier belief as an excuse to keep belching out as much Co2 as they can, while making the efforts of those that care almost pointless.
.

I take it that under your thinking that anyone who is a denier does so to justify putting out as much CO2 as he/she can.

Has it occurred to you that there may be some "deniers" out there who could put out a lot more CO2 than they do? Or that there are plenty of alarmists out there who drive SUVs and fly private jets and otherwise actually put out a lot of pullution?

Look - I see predictions being off. I see predictions that a glacier that has lost half of its mass in 40 years will lose half of its remaining mass in the next 100 years thanks to warming. A scientist "feels" that warming is a suspect.

Huh?

My wife is hotter than your wife.