Global cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years, 11 months ago to Science
Global cooling: Antarctic Sea Ice Coverage Continues To Break Records
What’s up with that? Square peg meet round hole…?
Also, I believe that ice sheets that are already “floating” on the sea can’t melt or break away and change sea levels. They are already displacing their weight on the sea. Volume works hand in hand. Ice floats because water's volume expands when frozen, unlike most other substances. I’m pretty sure I learned that in basic science class in elementary school…
Glad to have you aboard. :)
O.A.
Maph asks,
" if the western sheets are melting at rate which exceeds the growth of the eastern sheets, "
The key word is 'if'. Check it, do not rely on wikipedia. Answer- if=does not.
But, there is an active volcano under the western area. Is=there exists
My point is that many proponents of AGW seem to think that they know enough about an incredibly complex system to be able to predict an outcome. The fact that meteorologists are only even close about 1/2 the time indicates that we still have a LONG way to go before we can make such an authoritative claim.
Definitely. I read it when it first came out. I think I should pull it from the shelf and review it.
As always, Thank you for your informed, expert input.
Regards,
O.A.
True, but I have always had a an uneasy feeling regarding the 'fossil fuel theory" as the origin of these vast seas of underground carbon based fuels. It just doesn't sound any more plausible that multitudes of plants and animals piled up in particular locales, than it does to imagine it being created from the elements on earth by the earth's natural forces. As one contributing commenter in the following link suggests, no one questions the origin of diamond/diamindoids...
http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2006/12/is-...
The story of Eugene Island and its voluminous production after once being drained is of particular fascination. Of course, it could be easily explained as oil simply seeping back into the once depleted zone...
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/scienc...
One other thing of note: I know it is anecdotal, but back in the early eighties I ran an oil field machine shop in the Anadarko basin. I was told that it was common knowledge that many productive wells were being drilled and capped without extraction. The reported reasons were two fold; the wells that were not gushers would require the cost of pumping and for national security reasons we were buying middle eastern cheap oil in order to insure that the U.S. would always be the last to have oil in reserve in case of war etc., based on the belief of the time (Peak Oil- fossil origin) that the resource was finite...
Food for thought...
Thank you for your excellent contributions.
Respectfully,
O.A.
To put it succinctly, I caricatured a one-sentence "justification" an Objectivist pedophile might make for his behavior, based upon "trading value for value".
One of the moderators called me, and instead of requesting I remove the offending post, suckered me into leaving it and attempting to explain it as I explained on the phone, asserting he would step in to settle the matter once I did. He stepped in, alright.
I concede that I made my post when I was at a point where I'd been up for 20 hours (I work nights and hadn't been able to sleep), so my judgment was impaired, and the idea was generated by an episode of Law and Order SVU I'd been watching earlier where a pedophile made a similar attempt at justification. This doesn't mitigate the offense; I shouldn't have engaged in debate when my judgment was impaired by lack of sleep, like that. And I certainly shouldn't have listened to the
moderator.
In the middle of the firestorm, one of the offended members posted a comment linking to an extremely vile act of gang-rape by Moslems on young (underage) girls, which, in my opinion, was far more offensive than my one-line comment. After I was put in Coventry, I concluded that it wasn't that the statement was what gave offense, but the suggestion that Objectivists could be as hypocritical (or vile) as anybody else. Or rather, that hypocrites could hide behind Objectivism (to be more accurate).
The point I was making so badly was that there are moral considerations outside and beyond the Objectivist philosophy. I still believe this to be true.
And I still believe there are no unthinkable thoughts, because thinking an idea is not advocacy of an idea.
And that's the story from my point of view.
Diffusion isn't fast enough to get efficient mixing of the atmosphere between the hemispheres, but convection is. Convection is the dominant mass trasnfer mechanism in this case. Convective heat transfer, however, is DWARFED by radiative heat transfer. That is one of the reasons why we have seasons.
HOWEVER, the chemical makeup of the atmosphere is nearly uniform (i.e. position-independent). For instance, the concentration of CFC-11 (freon) is virtually identical in Delaware (where it's manufactured), in Hawaii, and in Antarctica. I have the data in a PowerPoint presentation that David Shonnard gave me at a summer school for young chemical engineering faculty back in 2002.
The mixing time for pollutants within the atmosphere is significantly less than one year.
Regarding reentering old fields, this is easily and accurately explained otherwise. While the earth is still producing oil, it doesn't happen in the human time frame. For practical purposes, oil is finite, but there's still quite a bit left, and as long as you're willing to pay for it we'll keep producing it for the next century or so. I predict something better will come along before we run out.
Since you're into chemistry, can you explain gas diffusion to the doubters? Most of the Global Warming fanatics whom I meet claim the reason things seem warmer in the northern hemisphere and colder in the southern hemisphere is because we evil northern hemisperians emit most of the CO2. I've tried explaining gas diffusion, but very few Global Warmheads know anything about science. They don't accept that the chemical makeup of the atmosphere is nearly uniform, no matter where you are, that even if we are evil northern hemispherians, we can still breathe southern hemisphere air, and vice versa, because it's chemically identical.
You're in good company, Bruno, Galileo, Socrates...oops. Can they execute you in The Gulch for saying the wrong thing?
Again, why are your posts hidden? What did you do to offend the gods?
Load more comments...