|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 25, 2013 14:41:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 25, 2013 14:47:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 25, 2013 14:51:36 GMT
www.principia-scientific.org/35-year-cooling-of-south-pole-confirmed-by-nasa.html#.Urq6K_sjvZ8.twitterThose Stubborn Facts:Antarctica Ice Sheets Safe The IPCC's climate science has long claimed that human CO2 emissions are producing an accelerated global warming, with a "runaway" warming trend, which is then being amplified in the north and south polar extremes. This dangerous warming is, of course, causing the ice sheets to melt, unleashing catastrophic sea level rise, and thus swamping coastal regions and low-lying islands, as we speak!
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 25, 2013 15:54:48 GMT
Latent heat is one of those hidden mysteries. Oooh arrr! Them freezing point heat rays are doing fine things to my tators! Better turn down the gennie cos its getting warmer now its freezing!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 25, 2013 17:53:04 GMT
Just to remind people here this is what Walt Meier at Nasa Cryospheric Lab told me after several emails back and forth. "Yes, I think I see your point. The wording implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to NSIDC with thoughts on how to better phrase the text to be clearer and technically correct" LOL! So the argument now is nothing causes anything because everything is caused by something else? ROTFLMAO!!
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 25, 2013 19:03:36 GMT
This really needs to stop.
Latent heat can only buffer temperature change as simple as that. Spikes and heating is mythology.
In the Arctic larger than normal open seas rather than ice buffers the fall of air temperature in autumn, that's why we see the arctic at a higher temperature than average in addition to regular climatic fluctuations. The bizarre "debate" about latent heat needs to become a position of détente.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 25, 2013 20:43:10 GMT
This really needs to stop. Latent heat can only buffer temperature change as simple as that. Spikes and heating is mythology. You might consider providing a reference or two supporting your viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Dec 25, 2013 21:04:17 GMT
I would have though most can remember their early School years texts.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 25, 2013 21:19:05 GMT
I would have though most can remember their early School years texts. Oh so you read them all? How about a link to one you did read?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 25, 2013 23:26:41 GMT
"Andrew:
Yes, I think I see your point. The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes.
-- Mark C. Serreze Director, National Snow and Ice Data Center"
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 26, 2013 5:05:23 GMT
"Andrew: Yes, I think I see your point. The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes. -- Mark C. Serreze Director, National Snow and Ice Data Center" Obviously the heat has to be in the water in order to cause a temperature spike Andrew. Don't you get that? Do you really think nobody else does? The argument with Numerouno was whether the absorption or release of latent heat has temperature change effects on adjacent materials not undergoing phase change. He claimed it was fully employed expanding ice and chipping away mountains. So the question still remains whether you believe this. I suppose not because now you call that an "aside". But if you believe that the phase change of water is not fully employed in expanding the ice, does it affect the temperature of adjacent objects creating heat spikes and cooling depressions depending upon the direction of the phase change? You have not yet admitted to that. So the question that remains while it appears you have walked back your support of the energy being fully employed chipping down mountains, whether you are going to admit that the heat can affect the temperature of adjacent objections or whether you are going to live forever in "Never Never Land" somewhere between the two concepts that you have yet to describe. Only you can answer.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 26, 2013 8:45:26 GMT
"Andrew:
Yes, I think I see your point. The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes.
-- Mark C. Serreze Director, National Snow and Ice Data Center"[/quote]
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Dec 26, 2013 14:00:37 GMT
www.clim-past.net/9/2789/2013/cp-9-2789-2013.htmlAbstract. In this study we report on new non-sea salt calcium (nssCa2+, mineral dust proxy) and sea salt sodium (ssNa+, sea ice proxy) records along the East Antarctic Talos Dome deep ice core in centennial resolution reaching back 150 thousand years (ka) before present. During glacial conditions nssCa2+ fluxes in Talos Dome are strongly related to temperature as has been observed before in other deep Antarctic ice core records, and has been associated with synchronous changes in the main source region (southern South America) during climate variations in the last glacial. However, during warmer climate conditions Talos Dome mineral dust input is clearly elevated compared to other records mainly due to the contribution of additional local dust sources in the Ross Sea area. Based on a simple transport model, we compare nssCa2+ fluxes of different East Antarctic ice cores. From this multi-site comparison we conclude that changes in transport efficiency or atmospheric lifetime of dust particles do have a minor effect compared to source strength changes on the large-scale concentration changes observed in Antarctic ice cores during climate variations of the past 150 ka. Our transport model applied on ice core data is further validated by climate model data.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Dec 26, 2013 17:33:01 GMT
"Andrew: Yes, I think I see your point. The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes. -- Mark C. Serreze Director, National Snow and Ice Data Center" [/quote] LOL! So you think Serreze believes the rapid ice growth was due to a source of heat that warmed the water? ROTFLMAO!! Serreze no doubt will jump at any opportunity to stroke his moron followers with any and all notions that global warming is at the root of everything. We see these kinds of history lessons being applied constantly. . . .after all how else could there have been a large area of open water? Status quo in the global warming world is everything should be under a thick layer of ice.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Dec 27, 2013 7:51:51 GMT
"Andrew: Yes, I think I see your point. The wording in our post implies that the rapid ice growth caused the warm temperatures, whereas in reality both the rapid ice growth and the warm temperatures were due to the large area of open water that needed to cool after absorbing a significant amount of heat. I passed along your comments to others at NSIDC with thoughts on how, in the future, we can better phrase issues to be clearer and technically correct.A big challenge we face with Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis is trying to make the science both accessible to a wide audience while maintaining the scientific rigor. There are times when we miss the mark. We need people like you to keep us on our toes. -- Mark C. Serreze Director, National Snow and Ice Data Center" LOL! So you think Serreze believes the rapid ice growth was due to a source of heat that warmed the water? ROTFLMAO!! Serreze no doubt will jump at any opportunity to stroke his moron followers with any and all notions that global warming is at the root of everything. We see these kinds of history lessons being applied constantly. . . .after all how else could there have been a large area of open water? Status quo in the global warming world is everything should be under a thick layer of ice. [/quote] Serreze was man enuf to admit he was wrong. That is how science moves forwards.
|
|