• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arctic Ocean and Greenland ice sheet see record June melting

Media_Truth said:
That equation from the Internet adequately showed the folly of your statement earlier --- "If so then there will be very little difference in melt time". Temperatures matter, and I would advise that you choose your words more wisely.
Click to expand...

How bad at maths do you have to be to get to your point?

The equation has no time varable in it. Time is not a factor in the equation.

Try not to fail so badly.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
I was referring to your idea that current is entirely produced by wind. There are a lot of factors that go into producing a current like water temperature and salinity differences. If wind was the only factor we wouldn't have deep water currents.
Click to expand...

Can you asses the power/force of those factors and compare them to the force of the wind on the surface of the ocean? I can. It is easy.

Try it and show that I am wrong.

i know already that such maths is well beyond you.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Can you asses the power/force of those factors and compare them to the force of the wind on the surface of the ocean? I can. It is easy.

Try it and show that I am wrong.

i know already that such maths is well beyond you.
Click to expand...

Ha Ha. "Such maths is beyond you."

Son you don't even have command of the English language let alone science. And if you knew my background you'd be seriously embarrassed.

I won't even bother to "show you" because you'll just poo poo it. But to attribute ocean currents to just wind is just plain dumb.

Once again. Stick to fixing toilets. You're absolutely ignorant when it comes to science.

Here's a cool phenomenon btw that is only due to freshwater combining with saltwater. It's off the coast of Maine. Just a small taste of what other forces besides wind can do to produce currents.

Efs36Wsl.png
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Ha Ha. "Such maths is beyond you."

Son you don't even have command of the English language let alone science. And if you knew my background you'd be seriously embarrassed.

I won't even bother to "show you" because you'll just poo poo it. But to attribute ocean currents to just wind is just plain dumb.

Once again. Stick to fixing toilets. You're absolutely ignorant when it comes to science.

Here's a cool phenomenon btw that is only due to freshwater combining with saltwater. It's off the coast of Maine. Just a small taste of what other forces besides wind can do to produce currents.

Efs36Wsl.png
Click to expand...

1, I never siad that ocean currents are solely due to wind.

2, The North Atlantic Conveyor is wind driven.

3, If you are so clever why not show us how much, as a proportion, the force of the surface wind is compared to the pressure difference due to thermal expansion or other forces? Salinity for example.

4, That your idea of what constitutes and alkaline is different to the more normally accepted concept is not my fault;

The pH scale and neutralisation - Revision 3 - KS3 Chemistry - BBC Bitesize

Key Stage 3 (commonly abbreviated as KS3) is the legal term for the three years of schooling in maintained schools in England and Wales normally known as Year 7, Year 8 and Year 9, when pupils are aged between 11 and 14.
Click to expand...

5, Here there are those who actually understand stuff. You clearly don't. It will constantly be obvious to all that this is the case.
 
Tim the plumber said:

1, I never siad that ocean currents are solely due to wind.

2, The North Atlantic Conveyor is wind driven.

3, If you are so clever why not show us how much, as a proportion, the force of the surface wind is compared to the pressure difference due to thermal expansion or other forces? Salinity for example.

4, That your idea of what constitutes and alkaline is different to the more normally accepted concept is not my fault;

The pH scale and neutralisation - Revision 3 - KS3 Chemistry - BBC Bitesize



5, Here there are those who actually understand stuff. You clearly don't. It will constantly be obvious to all that this is the case.
Click to expand...

Oh now you start back pedaling. :lamo Your initial post was only wind.

And stop digging a hole. Those of us with a science background know you're out of your league. :roll:
 
Tim the plumber said:
How bad at maths do you have to be to get to your point?

The equation has no time varable in it. Time is not a factor in the equation.

Try not to fail so badly.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is now on full display. Heat is passed from warmer water to ice, resulting in melting of the ice. I posted the mathematical equation for this. As long as ocean water is warming, this process will be occurring more and more. In other words - it's all the TIME!

OceanTemps_Doctored.jpg
 
EnigmaO01 said:
Oh now you start back pedaling. :lamo Your initial post was only wind.

And stop digging a hole. Those of us with a science background know you're out of your league. :roll:
Click to expand...

Find the initial post it will ask you about the ratio of forces. The North Atlantic Conveyor is over 99% wind driven.

You do not have a science background. You do not have a degree in chemistry of physics or a related subject.
 
Media_Truth said:
Your ignorance is now on full display. Heat is passed from warmer water to ice, resulting in melting of the ice. I posted the mathematical equation for this. As long as ocean water is warming, this process will be occurring more and more. In other words - it's all the TIME!

View attachment 67259939
Click to expand...

The equation you posted has no time factor in it.

The time it would take, in your initial scenario of ice in a bucket, not the different subject of ocean heat content, needs a whole load more information about the shape, density and such of the ice to get any idea of how long it is going to take to melt.

Your posts are so none-honest it is shocking. You have no clue at all about any physics related thing.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The equation you posted has no time factor in it.

The time it would take, in your initial scenario of ice in a bucket, not the different subject of ocean heat content, needs a whole load more information about the shape, density and such of the ice to get any idea of how long it is going to take to melt.

Your posts are so none-honest it is shocking. You have no clue at all about any physics related thing.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if he's not really an engineer.
 
Tim the plumber said:
The equation you posted has no time factor in it.

The time it would take, in your initial scenario of ice in a bucket, not the different subject of ocean heat content, needs a whole load more information about the shape, density and such of the ice to get any idea of how long it is going to take to melt.

Your posts are so none-honest it is shocking. You have no clue at all about any physics related thing.
Click to expand...

Oh, I assure, I understand "the thing". I guess the comprehension is beyond you. The higher the temperature of the water, the faster the surrounded ice will melt. If there is a huge mass of ice, and the water is constantly getting heated, the ice will continue to melt indefinitely, until it is gone. If you really want formulas that include time, they are readily available. Q' = U*ΔT*A. Your quibbling does nothing to refute scientific facts.
 
Media_Truth said:
Oh, I assure, I understand "the thing". I guess the comprehension is beyond you. The higher the temperature of the water, the faster the surrounded ice will melt. If there is a huge mass of ice, and the water is constantly getting heated, the ice will continue to melt indefinitely, until it is gone. If you really want formulas that include time, they are readily available. Q' = U*ΔT*A. Your quibbling does nothing to refute scientific facts.
Click to expand...

Stop talking about something different to the thing you started on.

Remember the buckets with ice in them?

If you don't you display some sort of mental crisis. Be careful you would not want the world thinking you have such a mental problem would you.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Stop talking about something different to the thing you started on.

Remember the buckets with ice in them?

If you don't you display some sort of mental crisis. Be careful you would not want the world thinking you have such a mental problem would you.
Click to expand...

Yes, the "bucket of ice" parallel. It was my analogy, not yours. If I choose to include time as a variable, that's my choice. It isn't necessary to demonstrate the melting principals of ice.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, the "bucket of ice" parallel. It was my analogy, not yours. If I choose to include time as a variable, that's my choice. It isn't necessary to demonstrate the melting principals of ice.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was your scenario. You demonstrated that you had no clue about it. You showed that you did not understand that the equation you found did not include a time component or any reference to the temperature of the surroundings outside the ice and water.

You then chose to wander off about ocean temperatures because you got it that you were out of your depth and then floundered about some more.

To imply that the rest of us did not follow all this is disingenuous.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, it was your scenario. You demonstrated that you had no clue about it. You showed that you did not understand that the equation you found did not include a time component or any reference to the temperature of the surroundings outside the ice and water.

You then chose to wander off about ocean temperatures because you got it that you were out of your depth and then floundered about some more.

To imply that the rest of us did not follow all this is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The experiment, if setup properly, would demonstrate water temperature's effect on ice melting. It is also applicable to ice anywhere on earth. It would be a good classroom exercise. To satisfy your whims, they could even measure the time difference for complete thawing --->

Try this science experiment at home. Get two buckets of ice. Put one in a room with 70 deg weather, and put the other in a room with 60 deg weather. Now add some 50 degree water to the bucket in the 70 deg room, and add some 40 deg water to the bucket in the 60 degree room. Which one melted first?
 
Media_Truth said:
The experiment, if setup properly, would demonstrate water temperature's effect on ice melting. It is also applicable to ice anywhere on earth. It would be a good classroom exercise. To satisfy your whims, they could even measure the time difference for complete thawing --->

Try this science experiment at home. Get two buckets of ice. Put one in a room with 70 deg weather, and put the other in a room with 60 deg weather. Now add some 50 degree water to the bucket in the 70 deg room, and add some 40 deg water to the bucket in the 60 degree room. Which one melted first?
Click to expand...

Remember when LoP told you how much energy was needed to melt ice vs the effect of the same energy warming up water from 0c?

Some of us are more advanced in our understanding than physics for 12 year olds.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Remember when LoP told you how much energy was needed to melt ice vs the effect of the same energy warming up water from 0c?

Some of us are more advanced in our understanding than physics for 12 year olds.
Click to expand...

Yes. You’ve told us.

Your physics education goes to 16 years old.
 
Tim the plumber said:

Remember when LoP told you how much energy was needed to melt ice vs the effect of the same energy warming up water from 0c?

Some of us are more advanced in our understanding than physics for 12 year olds.
Click to expand...

If you have some supported mathematical principal, show your links and your data. Otherwise, it's just more rhetorical garbage.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I wonder how much modeling has been done regarding the gravitational pulls of the orbits of the planets. on the changing geothermal hot spots?
Click to expand...

I will take a guess and say the gravitational pull of Jupiter and the other planets have a rather minor effect on changing geothermal hotspots, when compared to the gravitational pull of the sun and of course the moon. With the moon adding in indirectly the tidal forces (ie water mass)
 
Melting ice leads to sea level rise, and this is the case in the Arctic. Mid-July 2019 study --->

New study reports sea level rise in the Arctic

"The Arctic is a hotspot of climate change," said professor Florian Seitz of the German Geodetic Research Institute at the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

"Due to rising temperatures, the glaciers of Greenland are receding. At the same time sea ice is melting. Every year, billions of liters of meltwater are released into the ocean."

The enormous volumes of fresh water released in the Arctic not only raise the sea level, they also have the potential to change the system of global ocean currents—and thus, our climate.

 
Media_Truth said:
Melting ice leads to sea level rise, and this is the case in the Arctic. Mid-July 2019 study --->

New study reports sea level rise in the Arctic

"The Arctic is a hotspot of climate change," said professor Florian Seitz of the German Geodetic Research Institute at the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

"Due to rising temperatures, the glaciers of Greenland are receding. At the same time sea ice is melting. Every year, billions of liters of meltwater are released into the ocean."

The enormous volumes of fresh water released in the Arctic not only raise the sea level, they also have the potential to change the system of global ocean currents—and thus, our climate.
Click to expand...

Scientist Spots High Geothermal Heat Flux In East Greenland – ‘Dramatic Consequences For Ice Basal Melting’

By Kenneth Richard on 5. July 2019
Geothermal heat flux can foment upper mantle temperature anomalies of 800–1000 °C, and these extreme heat intensities have been found to stretch across 500 km of central-east Greenland. This could result in “a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland” (Artemieva et al., 2019). Evidence of more than 100,000 formerly or currently […]

Posted in Arctic, Glaciers | 9 Responses

Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable Or Gaining Ice

By Kenneth Richard on 20. May 2019
A new analysis of recent trends for the Greenland ice sheet reveals that since 2012 there has been an abrupt slowing of melt rates and a trend reversal to cooling and ice growth. • In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size. • Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced […]

 
Jack Hays said:
Scientist Spots High Geothermal Heat Flux In East Greenland – ‘Dramatic Consequences For Ice Basal Melting’

By Kenneth Richard on 5. July 2019
Geothermal heat flux can foment upper mantle temperature anomalies of 800–1000 °C, and these extreme heat intensities have been found to stretch across 500 km of central-east Greenland. This could result in “a significant contribution of ice melt to the ice-drainage system of Greenland” (Artemieva et al., 2019). Evidence of more than 100,000 formerly or currently […]

Posted in Arctic, Glaciers | 9 Responses

Greenland Has Been Cooling In Recent Years – 26 Of Its 47 Largest Glaciers Now Stable Or Gaining Ice

By Kenneth Richard on 20. May 2019
A new analysis of recent trends for the Greenland ice sheet reveals that since 2012 there has been an abrupt slowing of melt rates and a trend reversal to cooling and ice growth. • In 2018, 26 of Greenland’s 47 largest glaciers were either stable or grew in size. • Overall, the 47 glaciers advanced […]
Click to expand...

Proof that you will post any garbage - 2 links that are in 100% contradiction of one another.
 
Media_Truth said:
Melting ice leads to sea level rise, and this is the case in the Arctic. Mid-July 2019 study --->

New study reports sea level rise in the Arctic

"The Arctic is a hotspot of climate change," said professor Florian Seitz of the German Geodetic Research Institute at the Technical University of Munich (TUM).

"Due to rising temperatures, the glaciers of Greenland are receding. At the same time sea ice is melting. Every year, billions of liters of meltwater are released into the ocean."

The enormous volumes of fresh water released in the Arctic not only raise the sea level, they also have the potential to change the system of global ocean currents—and thus, our climate.
Click to expand...

1 billion liters is 1 Gt, or one cubic kilometer of ice.

You need 360 of them to make the ocean rise by 1mm.
 
Tim the plumber said:
1 billion liters is 1 Gt, or one cubic kilometer of ice.

You need 360 of them to make the ocean rise by 1mm.
Click to expand...

Actually, 1,000 liters is a ton, and you need a billion of them for a gigaton.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom