Snowfall does not equal ice accumulation. I posted the article I'm referencing in another thread.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
Snowfall does not equal ice accumulation. I posted the article I'm referencing in another thread.
Snowfall does not equal ice accumulation?????????????????
And people wonder why i don't accept your scientific view of AGW.
So, more melting in Greenland and the same ice accumulation on the South pole = rising sea levels.
Hmmmm. Wonder what's out there on that?
Snowfall does not equal accumulation - the mass balance is much more complicated:Snowfall does not equal ice accumulation?????????????????
And people wonder why i don't accept your scientific view of AGW.
So, more melting in Greenland and the same ice accumulation on the South pole = rising sea levels.
Hmmmm. Wonder what's out there on that?
accumulation (change in mass over time) = rate of ice mass gain (snow fall, condensation, researchers peeing in the snow if it freezes, etc.) - rate of ice mass loss (breaking off of icebergs, melting, people eating snow on Antarctica and then leaving the continent) - reactive consumption of ice (no chemical reactions, so no consumption) + reactive generation of ice
more melting in greenland, if balanced by ice accumulation on the south pole, means there is a negligible change in sea levels.
Plumbing leaks in melting Antarctic contributes to rising sea levels
By Stan Beer
Friday, 16 February 2007
Antarctica, which holds about 70% of the world's fresh water in its ice, is leaking water into the ocean through a vast system of lakes and water ways beneath the ice, causing the sea level to rise, according to scientists using data from NASA satellites.
Related stories
Science conference sounds alarm about climate and fish stocks
Scientist reports that cosmic rays cause much of Earth’s global warming
NASA Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter working but not without glitches
NASA Phoenix lander readies itself for new life on Mars
Strong evidence humans causing climate change say scientists
Scientists have discovered more than 145 subglacial lakes, a smaller number of which composes the "plumbing system" in the Antarctic.
A team of scientists led by research geophysicist Helen Fricker of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, La Jolla, California, detected for the first time the subtle rise and fall of the surface of fast-moving ice streams as the lakes and channels nearly a half- mile of solid ice below filled and emptied.
The surface of the ice sheet appears stable to the naked eye, but because the base of an ice stream is warmer, water melts from the basal ice to flow, filling the system's "pipes" and lubricating flow of the overlying ice. This web of waterways acts as a vehicle for water to move and change its influence on the ice movement. Moving back and forth through the system's "pipes" from one lake to another, the water stimulates the speed of the ice stream's flow a few feet per day, contributing to conditions that cause the ice sheet to either grow or decay. Movement in this system can influence sea level and ice melt worldwide.
Ted Scambos of the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado; and Laurence Padman of Earth and Space Research in Oregon; observed water discharging from these under-ice lakes into the ocean in coastal areas. Their research has delivered new insight into how much and how frequently these waterways "leak" water and how many connect to the ocean.
The study included observations of a subglacial lake the size of Lake Ontario buried under an active area of west Antarctica that feeds into the Ross Ice Shelf. The research team combined images from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument aboard NASA's Aqua satellite and data from the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System (GLAS) on NASA's Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) to unveil a multi-dimensional view of changes in the elevation of the icy surface above the lake and surrounding areas during a three-year period. Those changes suggest the lake drained and that its water relocated elsewhere
"There's an urgency to learning more about ice sheets when you note that sea level rises and falls in direct response to changes in that ice," Fricker said.
And as usual, this is a perfect example of the urge to simplify a more complicated problem in a manner that omits important factors, which we are seeing all the time in the AGW community.
Yep - thanks for proving my argument about the water flowing through Antarctic ice core samples, washing away all of that CO2.
Interestingly, as I also posted in another thread, as the ice accumulates on Antarctica, it will naturally force more of that water out (balancing of buoyancy forces and gravitational forces). So net ice accumulation might actually cause a rise in sea levels.
The rising sea level.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/New...3?img_id=17300
I thought you claimed that sea levels were not rising?
no, i said that greenland's melting was balanced by antarctic freezing. There is no evidence presented here that the rising sea levels are the result of melting ice caps, ACO2, or even global warming.
It's just another simplification of causality.
Oh, i see. The oceans are rising because of all the beer you, guisslapp, and spinoza have been pissing the last 5 years.
BTW, what company employs you as a chemical engineer? Are you still working with plastics?
Yep, plastics. they are STILL changing the world. Plastic solar cells to compete with Si cells. Plastic screens so that even elementary schools can afford jumbotrons. Plastics for medicine so that we can deliver later generation drugs (which are significantly more expensive to synthesize than earlier generations) with less total dosage, but by controlling the release rate and by targeting delivery with specialty plastics, with MORE HEALING POWER. Plastic heat transfer barriers to keep those new Coors cans and bottles colder longer.
What's the name of your company? I might want to buy some stock in it.
As a matter of fact I do know a bit about these type models They are very analogous to the 3 dimensional reservoir simulation models we use in the oil industry. Further, I have exchanged thoughts over the years with several of the climate modelers, mostly dealing with the seemingly never ending difficulties in being able to accurately model the physical systems we're dealing with. I have always thought that the climate modelers have a much more difficult problem than we (petroleum engineers) have. In both cases there are physical processes that we simply can't model and have to resort to heiuristic "rules" or approximations to try to account for the things we can't model. In both cases we have to estimate or extrapolate much of the "input" data. We must come up with input boundary conditions that are, at best, educated guesses even to get the models to run.Bill, always good to hear your sincere opinion.
With all of this uncertainty, we can get widely varying results from the models with almost imperceptable "tweaks" in control variables. With these type models there are no unique solutions, e.g. they have more unknowns than they do equations! So, in the case you asked me comment upon, all I can say is that I would guess there were many model "runs" that predicted slower melting and many that produced faster melting. As I've pointed out several times before, the modelers can and do recognise the severe limitations and uncertainty of their models, and produce runs that show a wide spectrum of outcomes. According to some of these guys I've talked to, they say the "report writers" pick the results they want and these get cherry picked even further by the political summary writers. Yet the report writers can truthfully state that these "results absolutely came from our most sophisticated model.
Further, since there are multiple groups of modelers, this scenario gets carried out on multiple different models and the final stuff that winds up in the reports is a mean average of the results from a number of models. This, of course, adds to the "consensus" hype and makes the result much easier to sell. Of course, the IPCC higher ups won't let you know that all of the results that were combined were all cherry picked results from the different models.
Perhaps in the case of the Greenland glaciers the result sifters felt that this type of "anomaly" would make their overall predictions seem more conservative. Apparent it worked. You fell for it!!!
Thanks for that explanation. If we could change to an off-topic question. What kind of gas reservoirs would one usually find at deep levels, say 22,000 ft. Would such reservoirs contain more than a reservoir at 12,000 ft or does it have more to do with the porsity of the rock no matter what the depth? At that depth of 22k, how large of area would one well drain, assuming it was at the top of the structure.
The 2nd question concerns that recent deep Gulf well that some people indicated a reservoir of 15 billion barrels of crude. What's your take on that estimate?
Being politicized? Yes.Is that sarcasm I detect?
No. Every one of the people who support the theory that man-made CO2 is causing the recent upward trend in GW is not a wacko bastard. It's their opinion based on their interpretation of the information. You're not wacko. The bastard part on the other hand...:icon_wink:
Surprisingly enough there is a fraction of the enviro group that does hate anything modern (electricity, autos, etc.). There's also a group that believes that the solution to the problem lies in mass reduction of the root cause of the problem (i.e., population reduction). Theyy are "out there".
Are you saying that GW is not being politicized?
Democrats typical response= carbon tax.
Republicans (even though majority think everything is fine)= tax incentives for business who explore alternatives.
IMO, there are no easy fixes and a combination of both along with huge investments by our government in research for technological solutions would be my idea.
This should be something where everyone comes together for a common goal, but when the two (dems. vs. Rep.) are as polar opposites on this topic as I have read them to be, no solutions will be forthcoming in the near future.
And, yes, population measures would be a good idea, but I won't be the one to bring it up. Ask Aubrey his opinion. Besides, my wife and I just discovered we have made one more than our two replacements. That would be hypocritical of me.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote