• 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

longview said:
So has the air temperature at the higher elevations of Kilimanjaro increased, and if so by how much?
Perhaps it is a change in the rainfall patterns that are slowing the snowfall levels?
Keep in mind, that we do not know what Kilimanjaro would have done if no Humans existed.
Click to expand...

It isn't snow fall.

It was glaciered ice sheets.

They have melted and then broke up which added to them melting at an accelerated rate. (More surface area exposure.)

If man didn't exist then who would it matter to?

Climate effects from mans input has historically been recorded.

Look up London Fog, Acid Rain or the Dust Bowl for some easy examples.
 
Dick Tornado said:
Thank you, I had not notice that error.

Writing a book about eating like kings and queens.

I also work in the HVAC industry.

I was juggling with my brain and dropped a ball....

I did a thesis on thermodynamics and did the calculations for the melting ice on Kilimanjaro, back in 1986 when it was deeply & completely covered and was told by Nay-Sayers that it would NEVER get bad enough to make a difference. (I was called "crazy" for thinking it could happen)

I predicted using conditions back then and calculated that Kilimanjaro would only have 25% of its Glacier by 2035.

Kilimanjaro's ice is down nearly to nothing and they are saying it will be completely ice free.

Now they say that it could be as soon as 2023.

I was thinking off the top of my head without having my old paper sitting in my lap.

It is 144 BTU's of heat to melt 1 pound of ice (32 degrees) and make it 33 degree water. (It is called a change of state.)

To take 1 pound of water to 34 degrees from 33 degrees it only takes 1 BTU.

To take 1 pound of water from 211 degrees to 212 degrees (Boiling) it again needs 144 BTU's. (Another change of state.)

The Greenland ice sheet is being exposed to temperatures 40 degrees hotter than what is its 200 year average projection.

That increased thermal input would have been in 1986 to far out for even "crazy" me to consider possible.

Click to expand...

I feel I must ask you to consider two things.

First, the 40 degrees hotter we see are "above normal" and just slightly higher than normal high. The only record setting we see for temperatures are in these locations showcased are with short spans of temperature history.

Now if you really understand thermodynamics, then understanding what a change in albedo will do to ice, should be easy for you. It can melt ice more rapidly than an increase of seasonal temperature. We are only speaking on a couple degrees difference at most. Heat transfers between ice and gas are rather slow. Sublimation is a factor as well.

What is the greater difference to melt ice? An average 2 degrees warmer and 2 W/m^2 increase in CO2 forcing, or a change in albedo from 0.80 to 0.75? You see, at 20% absorption of a radiant energy to the surface of 400 W/m^2 is 80 W/m^6. A 25% absorption is 100 W/m^2. With all the aerosols we have injected into the skies, a 5% loss of ice albedo is not hard at all. If we assume the numbers I presented, they represent a 20 W/m^2 increase that the ice absorbs.

Isn't this a far cry greater than a small change in temperature and greenhouse gas radiance?

Wouldn't even just a 1% percent change in albedo be more inducive to melt ice than what the alarmists would have us believe?
 
Dick Tornado said:
It isn't snow fall.

It was glaciered ice sheets.

They have melted and then broke up which added to them melting at an accelerated rate. (More surface area exposure.)

If man didn't exist then who would it matter to?

Climate effects from mans input has historically been recorded.

Look up London Fog, Acid Rain or the Dust Bowl for some easy examples.
Click to expand...
Well, the glaciers originated as precipitation, most likely snow.

Yes, we do have an effect. None of us here debating against the AGW agenda, are lost on the man made effects. We just don't see the ones spotlighted as alarming. we do have profound effects in other ways.

How far away are temperature monitoring stations from developed areas? What happens to their readings when the wind blows the right way, adding the urban heat island effect to their readings?

Have you considered the loss of evapotranspiration?

Take my city. Portland Oregon, with an average 42" of rainfall annually. In 1800, if we assume that 80% retained in the soil for later cooling, and 20% making it to streams and rivers, then of the water absorbed by land, evaporation cooling takes place. It is released back into the air through the respiration of plants and surface evaporation. We we see rain as a surface cooling agent. Right? Now comes the year 2000, and we have 90% of the city land capped off with concrete, asphalt, and buildings. 90% of the rain running into storm sewers, never to cool the surface. We go from 80% of the annual rainfall cooling the area down to 10%.

70% of 42"... 29.4"... We lost a significant part of our natural cooling.

Now I normally do things in normal science units, rather than BTU's. This loss of 29.4" of cooling potential is a rather large number when calculated. It's 74.676 centimeters. Over the area of 1 meter, it is 0.74676 metric tons. The enthalpy of vaporization is 2,257 joules per gram. Our 29.4 inches of water is 746,760 grams. 746,760 x 2,257 means it takes 1,685,437,320 joules of energy to evaporate it. This converts to 1,597,486.347111 BTUs.

Follow me?

Now a joule is 1 watt second, and there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. This means we have loss of 53.44 W/m^2 of annual cooling.

Now with thermometers so close to this effect change, can we trust them to represent a global change?
 
Last edited:
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the glaciers originated as precipitation, most likely snow.

Yes, we do have an effect. None of us here debating against the AGW agenda, are lost on the man made effects. We just don't see the ones spotlighted as alarming. we do have profound effects in other ways.

How far away are temperature monitoring stations from developed areas? What happens to their readings when the wind blows the right way, adding the urban heat island effect to their readings?

Have you considered the loss of evapotranspiration?

Take my city. Portland Oregon, with an average 42" of rainfall annually. In 1800, if we assume that 80% retained in the soil for later cooling, and 20% making it to streams and rivers, then of the water absorbed by land, evaporation cooling takes place. It is released back into the air through the respiration of plants and surface evaporation. We we see rain as a surface cooling agent. Right? Now comes the year 2000, and we have 90% of the city land capped off with concrete, asphalt, and buildings. 90% of the rain running into storm sewers, never to cool the surface. We go from 80% of the annual rainfall cooling the area down to 10%.

70% of 42"... 29.4"... We lost a significant part of our natural cooling.

Now I normally do things in normal science units, rather than BTU's. This loss of 29.4" of cooling potential is a rather large number when calculated. It's 74.676 centimeters. Over the area of 1 meter, it is 0.74676 metric tons. The enthalpy of vaporization is 2,257 joules per gram. Our 29.4 inches of water is 746,760 grams. 746,760 x 2,257 means it takes 1,685,437,320 joules of energy to evaporate it. This converts to 1,597,486.347111 BTUs.

Follow me?

Now a joule is 1 watt second, and there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. This means we have loss of 53.44 W/m^2 of annual cooling.

Now with thermometers so close to this effect change, can we trust them to represent a global change?
Click to expand...

False precision is clearly another of the many scientific concepts that lie beyond your ken! :lol:
 
Dick Tornado said:
It isn't snow fall.

It was glaciered ice sheets.

They have melted and then broke up which added to them melting at an accelerated rate. (More surface area exposure.)

If man didn't exist then who would it matter to?

Climate effects from mans input has historically been recorded.

Look up London Fog, Acid Rain or the Dust Bowl for some easy examples.
Click to expand...
I suspect that if you look into it, it is exactly snow fall, frozen participation.
Glaciers build because more is added in each year than melts or sublimes.
Ether side of the equation can cause a glacier to shrink.
Human activity does affect the climate, but that does mean that what is going on
on Mount Kilimanjaro is a result of higher temperatures.
Mount Kilimanjaro snow forecast for 5895 m
It looks like the temps are fairly solid around the 21 F mark, day and night, so even a 3 F increase would not
move anything above freezing.
 
Surface Detail said:
False precision is clearly another of the many scientific concepts that lie beyond your ken! :lol:
Click to expand...

This is why I generally give flippant remarks back to you, 3G, and Media Propaganda.

You have no valid argument against what I said, but you can't help but respond with stupid remarks.
 
Surface Detail said:
False precision is clearly another of the many scientific concepts that lie beyond your ken! :lol:
Click to expand...

I knew what I was doing, you didn't. I see Dick as someone capable of such understanding and math. I don't know if he understands significant digits, and thought I would avoid that. It appears he isn't familiar with scientific units, but I may be wrong about that.

You remind me of a sister of mine. Bitching about any insignificant thing she can find, when she cannot find actual fault.
 
Lord of Planar said:
This is why I generally give flippant remarks back to you, 3G, and Media Propaganda.

You have no valid argument against what I said, but you can't help but respond with stupid remarks.
Click to expand...

Yes, and your argument is so profound, even the scientists studying this for a living can’t understand it.

[emoji849]
 
Threegoofs said:
Yes, and your argument is so profound, even the scientists studying this for a living can’t understand it.

[emoji849]
Click to expand...

See, you speak of ignorance.

Scientists will not disagree with what I say, because what I say is scientifically sound.
 
longview said:
Mount Kilimanjaro snow forecast for 5895 m
It looks like the temps are fairly solid around the 21 F mark, day and night, so even a 3 F increase would not
move anything above freezing.
Click to expand...

Yet the mountain has lost almost all of its ice cap and will be ice free as soon as 2002.

Photos over the years show huge drops of ice coverage, but hell what you can see, touch, measure, quantify are just scientific lies....

I mean after all you, you said so. :allhail

Not just any expert or scientist you said it isn't happening.

Good thing we have you to keep us from believing in physical facts.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Well, the glaciers originated as precipitation, most likely snow.

Yes, we do have an effect. None of us here debating against the AGW agenda, are lost on the man made effects. We just don't see the ones spotlighted as alarming. we do have profound effects in other ways.

How far away are temperature monitoring stations from developed areas? What happens to their readings when the wind blows the right way, adding the urban heat island effect to their readings?

Have you considered the loss of evapotranspiration?

Take my city. Portland Oregon, with an average 42" of rainfall annually. In 1800, if we assume that 80% retained in the soil for later cooling, and 20% making it to streams and rivers, then of the water absorbed by land, evaporation cooling takes place. It is released back into the air through the respiration of plants and surface evaporation. We we see rain as a surface cooling agent. Right? Now comes the year 2000, and we have 90% of the city land capped off with concrete, asphalt, and buildings. 90% of the rain running into storm sewers, never to cool the surface. We go from 80% of the annual rainfall cooling the area down to 10%.

70% of 42"... 29.4"... We lost a significant part of our natural cooling.

Now I normally do things in normal science units, rather than BTU's. This loss of 29.4" of cooling potential is a rather large number when calculated. It's 74.676 centimeters. Over the area of 1 meter, it is 0.74676 metric tons. The enthalpy of vaporization is 2,257 joules per gram. Our 29.4 inches of water is 746,760 grams. 746,760 x 2,257 means it takes 1,685,437,320 joules of energy to evaporate it. This converts to 1,597,486.347111 BTUs.

Follow me?

Now a joule is 1 watt second, and there are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. This means we have loss of 53.44 W/m^2 of annual cooling.

Now with thermometers so close to this effect change, can we trust them to represent a global change?
Click to expand...

I see.

It isn't 40 degrees hotter in Greenland, it is cooler because melt ice evaporates which in effect is cooling the area.

Paris and France didn't have a heat wave it actually is a cold snap as indicated by the large number of ponds & lakes that have dried up indicates that again evaporation took place.

The Sahara desert is still a tropical rain forest just a little on the dry side.
 
Dick Tornado said:
I see.

It isn't 40 degrees hotter in Greenland, it is cooler because melt ice evaporates which in effect is cooling the area.

Paris and France didn't have a heat wave it actually is a cold snap as indicated by the large number of ponds & lakes that have dried up indicates that again evaporation took place.

The Sahara desert is still a tropical rain forest just a little on the dry side.
Click to expand...

Is there a question there? I'm only pointing out some facts that do apply, that are never discussed in the agenda.

Maybe you should keep an open mind and run the numbers someplace that you know.

Do you deny the known heat changes of evaporation?

Do you deny the known abortion changes that apples to albedo changes?
 
Lord of Planar said:
I feel I must ask you to consider two things.

First, the 40 degrees hotter we see are "above normal" and just slightly higher than normal high. The only record setting we see for temperatures are in these locations showcased are with short spans of temperature history.

Now if you really understand thermodynamics, then understanding what a change in albedo will do to ice, should be easy for you. It can melt ice more rapidly than an increase of seasonal temperature. We are only speaking on a couple degrees difference at most. Heat transfers between ice and gas are rather slow. Sublimation is a factor as well.

What is the greater difference to melt ice? An average 2 degrees warmer and 2 W/m^2 increase in CO2 forcing, or a change in albedo from 0.80 to 0.75? You see, at 20% absorption of a radiant energy to the surface of 400 W/m^2 is 80 W/m^6. A 25% absorption is 100 W/m^2. With all the aerosols we have injected into the skies, a 5% loss of ice albedo is not hard at all. If we assume the numbers I presented, they represent a 20 W/m^2 increase that the ice absorbs.

Isn't this a far cry greater than a small change in temperature and greenhouse gas radiance?

Wouldn't even just a 1% percent change in albedo be more inductive to melt ice than what the alarmists would have us believe?
Click to expand...

Energy is often the cause of most changes.

A steady rubbing of one material against another can produce a constant temperature that can be calculated, measured and duplicated.

Increasing that frictional effect by adding just ONE additional stroke can cause the interaction between the two materials to create an uncontrolled rise in temperature, the destruction of one or both materials and once again be duplicatable.

The suns energy hitting the ground can be endured by the average human nearly anyplace on the planet even the artic, but if you focus it with a magnifying glass even at 32 degrees below zero it will, melt ice, burn flesh or start a fire.

A small continued build up of potential energy until its sudden release is what causes earthquakes.

Ever hear of the line about "The straw that broke the camels back"?

It references how a infinitesimal piece of straw when added to what has already been applied can and does result in a catastrophic failure.
 
Dick Tornado said:
Energy is often the cause of most changes.

A steady rubbing of one material against another can produce a constant temperature that can be calculated, measured and duplicated.

Increasing that frictional effect by adding just ONE additional stroke can cause the interaction between the two materials to create an uncontrolled rise in temperature, the destruction of one or both materials and once again be duplicatable.

The suns energy hitting the ground can be endured by the average human nearly anyplace on the planet even the artic, but if you focus it with a magnifying glass even at 32 degrees below zero it will, melt ice, burn flesh or start a fire.

A small continued build up of potential energy until its sudden release is what causes earthquakes.

Ever hear of the line about "The straw that broke the camels back"?

It references how a infinitesimal piece of straw when added to what has already been applied can and does result in a catastrophic failure.
Click to expand...

I take it you don't understand the math. Working with BTU's and talking about how much heat it takes to melt ice, and change it by one degree, I was hoping I found someone who actually understood.

You are a disappointment in that regard. You clearly do not understand.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I take it you don't understand the math. Working with BTU's and talking about how much heat it takes to melt ice, and change it by one degree, I was hoping I found someone who actually understood.

You are a disappointment in that regard. You clearly do not understand.
Click to expand...

Why would you say that?

Because I do not agree with you?

Are you denying that the atmosphere is absorbing more potential energy that in years prior?

Do you deny that potential energy when unrestrained often results in a sudden kinetic release?

Your aware that a 100# mass traveling at 5 MPH verse 10 MPH does not have double the force, but a far greater amount correct?

Math can confirm all of these things

Physical science shows us for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction.
 
Last edited:
Dick Tornado said:
Why would you say that?

Because I do not agree with you?
Click to expand...
No, because you show no indication of seeing the magnitude of it vs. the greenhouse gas effect on ice.

Dick Tornado said:
Are you denying that the atmosphere isn't absorbing more potential energy that in years prior?
Click to expand...
Have I once given any indication that greenhouse gasses do not warm the atmosphere? They most certainly do.

Dick Tornado said:
Do you deny that potential energy when unrestrained often results in a sudden kinetic release?
Click to expand...
Yes, it does. But have you ever quantified the values?

Dick Tornado said:
Your aware that a 100# mass traveling at 5 MPH verse 10 MPH does not have double the force, but a far greater amount correct?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I wouldn't say "far greater." E = MC^2. The mass traveling 10 MPH would have four times the energy of the mass traveling 5 MPH.
 
Lord of Planar said:
No, because you show no indication of seeing the magnitude of it vs. the greenhouse gas effect on ice.
Click to expand...

"Magnitude of it", what is your it?

Please let me straighten things out. I'm not saying if we control Greenhouse gases we are good, far from it. We could easily have something happen that no one considered or could experience factors that cause the next ice age. (12,000 years of extra salty oceans, low fresh water resources and a loss of agriculture. :) I try to use knows of all types and base my opinion on my assemblance of those factors.

Lord of Planar said:
Have I once given any indication that greenhouse gasses do not warm the atmosphere? They most certainly do.
Click to expand...

I'm not a big follower of greenhouse gases as being overly evil, I believe to account for the planetary fluxes we need to calculate all items of influence, not just the bright and shiny ones.

Rough Example; If your measuring the amount of water being added to a pool and you know the amount passing through the hose filling it, but ignore that it has poured for three days straight, plus on top of that, you see the roof gutter drains into the pools deep end, you only have the basis of a fact. To me I have to see if I can find the amount of rain during that period 92.2"), the surface area of the pool and the surface area of the roof and add them to the hoses calculations. I actually had to use this once, I had a client buying a home and the huge pool leaked and we had to show how bad. (2.2" of rain water from the roof alone was like 110 gallons)

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, it does. But have you ever quantified the values?
Click to expand...

To some degree when I was better engaged, but honestly not lately, and nothing I would publish to a journal. I'm sliding close to hospice care (cancer), so things I used to be fairly OCD with I can't spend the time on. I still keep informed, but do less personal research as I used to and like to.

Lord of Planar said:
Yes, but I wouldn't say "far greater." E = MC^2. The mass traveling 10 MPH would have four times the energy of the mass traveling 5 MPH.
Click to expand...

You know that most of the posters here have no idea what we are talking about....:) It wasn't the 27 ounce piece of foam that brought down the shuttle, it was the 500+ miles an hour it was traveling at or better said the 500+ miles an hour the shuttle was traveling at when the two encountered each other. Some of the greatest scientific and math based minds in America calculated that problem wrong to the crews determent.
 
Dick Tornado said:
Yet the mountain has lost almost all of its ice cap and will be ice free as soon as 2002.

Photos over the years show huge drops of ice coverage, but hell what you can see, touch, measure, quantify are just scientific lies....

I mean after all you, you said so. :allhail

Not just any expert or scientist you said it isn't happening.

Good thing we have you to keep us from believing in physical facts.
Click to expand...
Please pay attention, if the higher elevations of the mountain, do not get above freezing,
the ice loss is from some other process, besides temperature!
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo I think you mean K.E. = (1/2) mv^2. We're not talking relativistic velocities here!
Click to expand...

It's still velocity squared. A doubling of speed is four times the energy.

You always quibble over insignificant things, because you cannot argue with the significant sciences.
 
Lord of Planar said:
It's still velocity squared. A doubling of speed is four times the energy.

You always quibble over insignificant things, because you cannot argue with the significant sciences.
Click to expand...



Whatever the beginning equation, as long as a doubling in velocity results in a quadrupling of energy, the equation is correct, even if not given in its standard formation. Doubling mass w/o any change in velocity will double the energy.
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo I think you mean K.E. = (1/2) mv^2. We're not talking relativistic velocities here!
Click to expand...



Whatever the beginning equation, as long as a doubling in velocity results in a quadrupling of energy, the equation is correct, even if not given in its standard formation. Doubling mass w/o any change in velocity will double the energy.
 
Surface Detail said:
:lamo I think you mean K.E. = (1/2) mv^2. We're not talking relativistic velocities here!
Click to expand...

Oh, LoP calculates everything in fractions of the speed of light.

Because he can. Because he’s so good at mathematics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom