Climate Change is here and man made

[Skashion]

But you just said:

When you melt ice cubes in floating water, the level stays the same.

How is that the same?!

You're claiming sea ice is the bigger problem that people are more arsed about when you're fannying about with the relative weights of ice and sea water, which amounts to less than 2% of sea level rise.

As I say, I'm trying to talk about THE big issue, you're talking about 2% of sea level rise.

 

[Damocles]

Isn't this exactly what SWP said?

Did I reject that claim anywhere?

 

[BulgarianPride]

Isn't this exactly what SWP said?

Did I reject that claim anywhere?

No, you didn't. However i am confused, as there a few others on here, who think you suggested the melting of the current sea ice is the big problem.

Edit: Post below clears up my confusion.

 

[Damocles]

But you just said:

When you melt ice cubes in floating water, the level stays the same.

How is that the same?!

You're claiming sea ice is the bigger problem that people are more arsed about when you're fannying about with the relative weights of ice and sea water, which amounts to less than 2% of sea level rise.

As I say, I'm trying to talk about THE big issue, you're talking about 2% of sea level rise.

No I'm not, I'm talking about the increase of the amount of a certain type of ice which has a large bearing on the overall climate and ecosystem. You're the only one talking about sea ice melting rising means a huge change. I've consistently said that the problem is the amount of sea ice, not the melting of it. In fact, I eevn went to great lengths to mock corky for conusing ice sheets and ice shelves

I corrected a simple error you made on the Archimedes Principle and the difference between sea and fresh water which had little to do with the overall point.

This is exactly why I saw this three pages ago, called it a miscommunication and asked that we stick to science before you told me that I hadn't a clue what I was talking about.

 

[Skashion]

No I'm not, I'm talking about the increase of the amount of a certain type of ice which has a large bearing on the overall climate and ecosystem. You're the only one talking about sea ice melting rising means a huge change. I've consistently said that the problem is the amount of sea ice, not the melting of it. In fact, I eevn went to great lengths to mock corky for conusing ice sheets and ice shelves

I corrected a simple error you made on the Archimedes Principle and the difference between sea and fresh water which had little to do with the overall point.

This is exactly why I saw this three pages ago, called it a miscommunication and asked that we stick to science before you told me that I hadn't a clue what I was talking about.

Alright, let's dial it back then, and establish some facts.

1. The vast majority of sea level rise, give or take, 60m of the possible 70m, CAN ONLY come from the melting of the land-based East Antarctic ice sheet. The Western Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland pale in comparison.

2. This ice sheet is not only not melting but gaining mass.

3. Even if it did start melting, it would take thousands of years to melt.

 

[johnny on the spot]

Sorry folks, it's happening and we are doing it. Peak oil to happen within our lifetimes and your kids to grow up in chaos. Sleep tight.

 

[Damocles]

No I'm not, I'm talking about the increase of the amount of a certain type of ice which has a large bearing on the overall climate and ecosystem. You're the only one talking about sea ice melting rising means a huge change. I've consistently said that the problem is the amount of sea ice, not the melting of it. In fact, I eevn went to great lengths to mock corky for conusing ice sheets and ice shelves

I corrected a simple error you made on the Archimedes Principle and the difference between sea and fresh water which had little to do with the overall point.

This is exactly why I saw this three pages ago, called it a miscommunication and asked that we stick to science before you told me that I hadn't a clue what I was talking about.

Alright, let's dial it back then, and establish some facts.

1. The vast majority of sea level rise, give or take, 60m of the possible 70m, CAN ONLY come from the melting of the land-based East Antarctic ice sheet. The Western Antarctic ice sheet and Greenland pale in comparison.

2. This ice sheet is not only not melting but gaining mass.

3. Even if it did start melting, it would take thousands of years to melt.

I agree with 1 and 2. Number 3 fails to take into consideration numerous other factors from the arguments that I've seen.

More sea ice produces more polynias. This is important for several reasons. Sea ice goes through a process called brine rejection which desalinates the water in the ice and produces the heavy salt water that sinks to the bottom and has an effect on thermohaline circulation, effecting water density and heat loss. More of this water means more salt in surface water. It also means hotter air which is blown directly onto the land ice mentioned at a logarithmic rate. In addition to this, sea ice absorbs far, far less sunlight than land ice which changes the radiation budget of the region which again has knock on effects for everything else.<br /><br />-- Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:38 pm --<br /><br />

he will be back in a bit once he's trawled the internet and come back with some clever stuff he passes off as his own work

Why don't you ask the people who have met me whether I'm just Googling this stuff?

 

[Damocles]

Go for it, let us all know your results

 

[Skashion]

I agree with 1 and 2. Number 3 fails to take into consideration numerous other factors from the arguments that I've seen.

I'd invite your own calculation on that then. Assume your parameters. I won't even ask why. All I'll do is compare them to current rates from Greenland.

 

[johnny on the spot]

I hope nobody here is microwaving their popcorn.

 

[Damocles]

I agree with 1 and 2. Number 3 fails to take into consideration numerous other factors from the arguments that I've seen.

I'd invited your own calculation on that then. Assume your parameters. I won't even ask why. All I'll do is compare them to current rates from Greenland.

I've just explained things that the arguments I've seen for your figure didn't take into effect? Maybe it's easier if you provide your own argument then I can argue against it rather than the opposite

 

[Skashion]

I've just explained things that the arguments I've seen for your figure didn't take into effect? Maybe it's easier if you provide your own argument then I can argue against it rather than the opposite

You want me to do the maths?

 

[Skashion]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

 

[Damocles]

No, Damocles will point out for maybe the fourth time that warming in that region is a logarithmic phenomena and ask his friend Skashion what will happen to the EA ice mass if the WA ice mass continues with its current melting.

EDIT: I'd also like to point out that EA isn't gaining mass on a longitudinal scale, it seems stable on 10+ year graphs but it had a good years in 2005/09 which is where the "Gaining mass" idea comes from, but I've chosen not to argue this as it's irrelevant to the overall point

 

[hilts]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

 

[Damocles]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

Because climate scientists look at the big picture and don't focus on a very narrow subsection of it. Again, the scientific consensus on climate change is absolutely clear, something everybody seems to be dodging.

 

[BoyBlue_1985]

Surely someone has argued this point? why do most scientists believe there is great cause for concern? if us plebs can't trust the majority of scientists how would we come to any sort of conclusion?

Because climate scientists look at the big picture and don't focus on a very narrow subsection of it. Again, the scientific consensus on climate change is absolutely clear, something everybody seems to be dodging.

the real reality is that if it does indeed exist there is jack all we can do about it so what doesnt everyone just accept that if it is happening then it will always stay happening. Well unless we just nuke all the new developing countries

 

[johnny on the spot]

Ric,

Put Damocles back in charge.

Thanks,

Bluemoon

 

[Skashion]

No, Damocles will point out for maybe the fourth time that warming in that region is a logarithmic phenomena

and ask his friend Skashion what will happen to the EA ice mass if the WA ice mass continues with its current melting.

Has there been logarithmic warming in that region? Particularly in the East Antarctic where I was under the impression that there was no trend or even a tiny amount of cooling. I should certainly love to see some evidence. I should also like to hear a reason why the logarithmic warming has not led to logarithmic ice loss. Surely that is very important.

I don't know, I'd like to hear more from you because I'm getting very little.

By the way, I found this interesting, but I'd like to see the full report, but NASA report ice gain across the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole: <a class="postlink" href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20120013495</a>

 

[BulgarianPride]

East Antarctic Ice Sheet ~ 30,000,000 KM^3 of ice.
Each Km^3 = 0.9 Gt.

Current loss from Greenland ~ 300 Gt p/a

IF East Antarctic lost mass at current rate of Greenland = 90,000 years.
So, if it lost ice ten times as fast, it would be 9,000 years.
A hundred times as fast, 900 years.

My conservative estimate of at least a few thousand years (3,000 years), 30 times as fast as Greenland currently is.

So,even assuming my ultra-conservative calculation, as far as I'm concerned, is that the Eastern Antarctic ice sheet, will loss mass at 30 times the rate Greenland is despite actually GAINING mass at the moment, it will take 3,000 years for 60m of sea level rise.

Damocles is now going to tell you why the East Antarctic ice sheet, will melt MORE than 30 times as fast as Greenland, when it's currently gaining mass.

The problem with this is the simplicity. The environment is a dynamic system, what you have done is taken an average. It doesn't account of many factors that are not static. Knowing the current system output does not really tell us how the system will behave in the future. We can apply an average like you've done, but in most cases this is a bad estimate. What we need is a better model.

I think a question we need to answer is "What is the steady state model of the earth?". We can be set into "chaos" by certain inputs ( us as an example), but higher order factors eventually put us back into the steady state. The steady state does no imply static, but it implies a natural order of the system. That is the system wants to reach this steady state over time. However if the inputs are so extreme, the system will break down and could be naturally unrecoverable. We obviously need a model ( mathematical equations, usually high order differential equations ) to try to predict what will happen. Current models don't predict a nice future, could that our model is not accurate, i.e driving factors over a long period of time.