Although the poster is no longer around, this is a general discussion - in case of new people becoming distracted or confused by the confidence with which this silliness was posted, a reply seems in order: 1) a. tidal fluctuations were not in fact the cause of the breakups of the several plugs, or barrier ice formations, that we have been losing or have lost around Antarctica and Greenland. The glaciers formerly slowed are speeding up, which adds to the sea ice volume while it subtracts from the land ice volume. 1) b. rising sea levels from a warming ocean increase the effect of shoreline tidal fluctuations on everything affected by them. Even small rises often have amplified effects, and the rises are no longer all that small. So tidal fluctuations do not replace, but rather augment and amplify, the effects of global warming. 1) c. The increasing flow of breakup ice, landbased glacial ice, and meltwater, into the ocean floats a layer of very cold (therefore lighter) fresher (therefore lighter) water on top of the globally warming ocean that abetted the ice loss. That affects many things, including the calculations of net global temperature, weather local and distant, and ecological circumstances, in ways some climate deniers appear to find confusing. 2) What the IPCC has "admitted" is what the data show for everybody to see - a recent slowdown (not a stoppage even, much less a reversal) in what was for a while a startlingly rapid rise in planetary atmospheric temperatures. You asserted that global warming (land, sea, and air) has stopped for 18 years, which is not what the data show and not what the IPCC has "admitted". 3) The long term melting of the glaciers in North America is not the "current global warming". You said it was. That was silly.
There is also a "1d" to your list as to why sea ice area is increasing: Most of the data, if not all is now by satellite photos. As I recall, the sea is considered "ice covered" if more than 50% is. As the ices thins and is blown around there is an increasing amount of small gaps between the pieces of floating ice. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As far as the satellite is concerned this sea is "ice covered" but if the bear want to try his luck at getting a seal to eat from another floating piece, he's gona haft to swim.
Nothing wrong with it. Glacial meltwater is often very cold - very near 0C - the ocean water destabilizing the ice sheet often slightly warmer - closer to 4C - and therefore more dense on temperature grounds besides the salt content. The main factor would be salt content, of course. But a layer of very cold water floating on top of the generally warming ocean is the consequence regardless.
Relative to cold water, floating on the surface of the saltier ocean water, since salt causes the vapor pressure of the water to lower, the fresh water on the surface is able to evaporate easier, than ocean water, for more precipitation recycle. The evaporation rate will slow as the fresh water mixes with the ocean water and the salt causes vapor pressure lowering. The same is also true of refreezing. Salts also cause melting point depression. As such the fresh water on the top can refreeze easier. As the fresh water mixes with the salt water, it will need to get colder to freeze. One problem that occurs when comparing the ancient past data with the contemporary earth data, in terms of global warming and cooling, is the past has to rely on geological inference to predict temperature and conditions, while the present gets to use thermometers and other devices for more direct measurements. What would happen if we had to measure all the current temperatures changes with only geological inference instead of modern accurate thermometers? Would the numbers come out the same with decimal points? The answer is no. As an analogy, let us compare counting and comparing the growth rings in trees, versus being able to directly measure temperature and precipitation. Both sort of do the same thing. Would contemporary science accept tree rings as the new standard over direct measurements, if you had the option to do it both ways? Or would the old fashion method not be suitable because the electronic is more accurate? With growth rings, we can't tell how the rain fell. If two locations both had 50 inches of rain, but one had 4 major storms with all the rain and the other had 50 little storms with smaller rain totals, the latter location would have bigger growth rings due to less water runoff. The inference data has hidden wild cards that you can use to stack the deck because you can infer all possible scenarios needed before you can infer. Maybe we can use the inference data assumptions to analyze the past 100 years; ignore anything that uses electronics.
Hea! Wellwisher What has happened to you? Post 1664 you made is the third in a row I read that is really good. You made clear some things I had not realized! Your noting that the cold fresh water floating on top of warmer salt water may be a significant reason why the ice cover in Antarctic is increasing. I.e. not just due to glaciers that were on land but "plugged" by sea ice that is "hooked" on submerged ridge, floating free so they can move off land and warm to 0C - more fresh water less dense until it become warmer than 4C. Then it can sink deeper to start to mix with even denser salt water at the same temperature. Even in the artic Ocean, land ice melting will freeze more easily and may be why the rate of ice cover on the sea in not decreasing as fast as it was. Because the climate change deniers don't understand this mechanism for expansion (or slowed rate of shrinking in the Arctic's case) they site this data in support of their POV. - Being ignorant of what is causing these "sea ice extent" effects lets them do that. Kept up making such good posts and Sciforums will fire me as the "sheriff of nonsense" - Not a big loss for me - they never paid me for all my good work.
That is how they calibrated what you are calling the "inference data" , or rather the instruments and interpretation protocols and assignments of confidence ranges. So you see larger error bars on estimates made from indirect inference, without direct measurement, routinely. That's standard procedure, has been for centuries now. All the climate reconstruction of past times was made so, all the AGW supporting data compiled in that manner with full awareness.
Very cold water is less dense than simply cold water. Water at 33F is less dense than water at 40F and thus floats on top.
Yes; and I have explaine why in several posts.Here is first the search engine produced: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/spontaneous-order-from-chaos.136137/#post-3108253 The following two paragraphs of that post tell why: "Water is not just H2O molecules. It is, especially at lower temperatures, short chains of n H2O molecules as the H2O molecule is intrinsically polarized. I.e. both Hydrogen are positively charged and on only one side of the negatively charged O molecule, with 105 degrees of angular separation between them. I.e. H2O in any physical state is really partially a polymer of this monomer: ++(H2O)- - but the electron transfer is not complete as illustrate here. For example, an "n = 4" or nH2O chain is: ++(H2O)(H2O)(H2O)(H2O)-- and splitting it into ++(H2O)(H2O)(H2O)-- and the monomer takes energy* but the 4H2O chain is not 1D linear as illustrated. it is 3D. As these chains and simple H2O molecules collide they are constantly breaking and others are adding an ++(H2O)-- to grow longer in a dynamic equilibrium with a fixed distribution of n at any temperature. As water cools, the average n increases. This explains why water cooing below 4C expands. I.e. the average "void volume" as a "jumble" of chains grows colder in creases below 4C." * As the water temperature decreases, the average energy of collisions between water molecules (short chains, included) decreases then both breaking an existing longer chain becomes less probably AND the failure to "stick" instead of "bounce" when a single or short chain hit the end of a longer one decreases too. I.e. As zero C is approach the typical chain is many monomers long. They make ever bigger voids and Ice is about 10% voids, as I recall. - A jumbled pile of short, half-cooked, spaghetti pieces is a good model of ice. Note the above is very slightly modified as in the original post I was explaning why a particular salt (crystals of NH₄NO₃) dissolving in water is endothermic.
Or, put another way, the density of liquid fresh water peaks at 4°C (277 K). Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As a rule of thumb every gram of salt added to 1 litre of water lowers the freezing point and raises the boiling point by 1 K. The same beaviour is observed in the density as well - the temperature at which the maximum density is observed decreases: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My recollection is that the salinity of antarctic ocean water is fairly close to 34 PSU at the surface, increasing to something like 34.6 below 200m.
Water displays the same property in this regard as liquid silica. The experimental evidence we have available to us points to water existing in clusters, not chains. EG: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...ionid=78B7AB9E281864EC954E04FF77B82736.f04t02 http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JMPB/article/download/14365/14673 Basically, the current understanding (as I recall anyway) is that down to the temperature of the anomaly, water molecules behave in the standard way you'd expect, however, the hydrogen bonds become increasingly effective. At the temperature of the anomaly the water, the kinetic energy of the molecules is no longer as effective at overcoming the hydrogen bonds and so it becomes more energetically favourable for the water molecules to arrange themselves in these open cage like structures, and the proportion of the water molecules in these structures begins to increase, which over all decreases the density.
Addendum to my previous post: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Thanks for links. First is pay to view so did not. Yes Clusters with voids is better POV; However in some of my earlier posts, I did note that the 3D nature of the chains would allow, if not very naturally form loops in 3D some of which might be more stable than others as the temperature rises. I even suggested some experiments that could be done to confirm there existence. Some of these posts were in threads concerned with homeopathic medicine - which I suggested was not valid but admitted that some structures added to water might server as "templates" to from stable 3D structures (I did not call them "clusters" but clearly that term could have been used in stead of my "structures.") My main point is that as water cools below 4C it has an ever increasing fraction of voids - so becomes less dense. In earlier posts I have also noted that without this characteristic, life could not have evolved on Earth as oceans would freeze from the bottom up if ice were denser than water.
Climate-gate by the state: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From 1970 on: Up 2 degrees F in 40 years. Faster than Arctic Warming, but of course, they don't have tons of ice to melt in SC, which acts as a clamp on temperature rise.
The point is that they're NOT. CHAINS. Homeopathic medicine is pseudoscience, the rest is irrelevant. And my point was, and is, that you attributed the increasing fraction of voids to the formation of chains - something which nature seems to find difficult constructing, and it has nothing to do with the formation of chains. Chains are utterly irrelevant.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30197085 http://www.theguardian.com/environm...uld-offer-solution-last-resort-climate-change
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/opinion/sunday/the-end-of-snow.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=1 http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/201...p-up-to-2-feet-of-snow-over-250-mile-stretch/
The Totten Glacier is the largest glacier in East Antarctica, 120 km long and more than 30 km wide. It is melting, not stable as believed.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Photo's caption was: Totten Glacier in eastern Antarctica is twice the size of Victoria and contains enough water to raise the sea level by six metres. * This article: https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/26098376/totten-glacier-melting-with-warmer-ocean/ states that the 15 years of thinning was observed by satellite measurement (radar echoes from top air/ice and bottom ice/water interfaces, I assume) Another East Antarctic glacier was also thought to be stable as its movement towards the sea was "pined" by some under water mountain chain blocking movement of an ice sheet floating on <0C salt water holding back the glacier; but now the rising sea level has let part of the ice sheet flow freely. See photo of it doing so and discussion at: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/is-global-warming-even-real.143423/page-2#post-3255435 Melting of that glacier raise Global sea level 3 to 4 meters. Acting together and melting, as they both are in the process of doing, raise global sea level at least 9 meters (or 30 feet!) Greenland's ice cap, more than a mile thick in parts, is also melting at an accelerating rate; if melted (or should I say when?) that is another 15 to 20 foot rise in the sea level. But look on the bright side: A 50 foot rise in sea level is a lot of fresh water slowing the acidification of the oceans. Anyone have a map showing how much "dry land" remains after a 50 foot rise in sea level? At least Cuba will be much more than 90 miles from dry USA.
"A National Weather Service official says the agency will evaluate its storm modeling..." http://www.myfoxny.com/story/27950449/missed-call Meanwhile, in the wake of the biggest storm NY city had ever seen, we need to get back to consulting the other models helping us prepare and find solutions the greatest crisis the world has ever known.
