National Geographic Maps Our Coastline After We Melt All Earth’s Ice, Raising Seas Over 200 Feet

By Joe Romm on November 10, 2013 at 12:13 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ice-gone.jpg

Homo sapiens sapiens, the species with the ironic name, is not known for long-term thinking. So if the prospect of Sandy-level storm surges happening every year (!) in a half century or so isn’t enough to get us to stop using the atmosphere as an open sewer for carbon pollution, then the prospect we are going to melt all of the Earth’s landlocked ice and raise sea levels more than 200 feet over the next couple of millenna or so ain’t gonna do the trick.

Still, National Geographic has been one of the few major magazines to consistently warn the public about the risks posed by unrestricted carbon pollution. And who better to be alarmed about how we are going to destroy the nation’s geography than National Geographic? Unsurprisingly, the deniers and confusionists, including Bjorn Lomborg himself, have suggested that somehow Nat Geo’s concern is misplaced. Sadly, it isn’t.

The best science suggests that on our current CO2 emissions path, by 2100 we could well pass the tipping point that would make 200+ feet of sea level rise all but unstoppable — though it would certainly take a long time after 2100 for the full melt-out to actually occur.

That said, the text on Nat Geo’s graphic is a little confusing and has the unfortunate effect of suggesting that we would need 22°F of global warming to melt all the ice on the planet, when that’s not what the paleoclimate record suggests.

The confusionists are preternaturally confused by all this. A leading denier website actually cites current data on sea ice (!) to refute Nat Geo, even though it is only melting landlocked ice that raises sea levels.

The deniers direct us to the Danish delayer’s widely unread Facebook page – seriously Bjorn, only “9,436 likes, 835 talking about this”? — where Lomborg asserts:

Quote:

Needless scaremongering.     National Geographic is at it again. They present the world “if all the ice melted” — and they have the temerity to suggest it will happen with more global warming.     “If we continue adding carbon to the atmosphere, we’ll very likely create an ice-free planet, with an average temperature of perhaps 80 degrees Fahrenheit instead of the current 58.”     This, of course, is only the outcome of continuing ever larger carbon emissions for many hundreds of years, something that no one is realistically expecting.     Could we please have a sensible, non-scare conversation back at the venerable National Geographic?

“Temerity”? As the saying goes, I don’t think that word means what Lomborg thinks it means. All the ice is going to melt if we keep listening to inactivists like Lomborg.

No doubt Nat Geo was trying to bend over backwards to be conservative about what it would take to melt all the land-locked ice on the planet. In fact, James Hansen and other leading climatologists published an analysis that 6°C (11°F) of warming would be sufficient. They argue a doubling of CO2 levels from pre-industrial levels to 550 parts per million (we’re currently at about 400 rising 2+ ppm a year) would ultimately get us that level of warming, once some of the decadal amplifying feedbacks kick in.

Dr. Andrew Glikson, a paleoclimate scientist, discussed the literature supporting that view last year (here):

Quote:

Studies of the evolution of the terrestrial atmosphere based on multiple proxies (carbon isotopes in phytoplankton and in fossil soils, plant leaf stomata pores, boron isotopes, boron/calcium ratios) confirm the upper stability boundary of the Antarctic ice sheet at about 500+/-50 ppm CO₂. Other estimates suggest 615 ppm CO₂ or near-800 ppm CO₂.

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Antarctica1.jpg
CO2 levels over past 80 million years. The original decline in temperature from the end-Eocene (~34 million years ago) and the onset of the Antarctic ice sheet occurred when CO₂ levels declined to below ~600 ppm.

[continued ...]

[... continued]

Unfortunately, humans are on a path to blow past 550 ppm and hit 800 to 1,000 ppm this century. The key point the anti-science crowd seems unaware of is that, as a 2009 NOAA-led study explained, impacts like sea level rise (and Dust-Bowlification) would be “largely irreversible for 1,000 years”:

Quote:

…the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop … Among illustrative irreversible impacts that should be expected if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations increase from current levels near 385 parts per million by volume (ppmv) to a peak of 450-600 ppmv over the coming century are irreversible dry-season rainfall reductions in several regions comparable to those of the ”dust bowl” era and inexorable sea level rise.

Lomborg’s idea of a “sensible” discussion may be one that ignores the science, but the fact is that the NOAA analysis gives the lie to the notion that it is a moral choice not to do everything humanly possible to prevent this tragedy, a lie to the notion that we can “adapt” to climate change — unless by “adapt” you mean “force the next 50 generations to endure endless misery because we were too damn greedy to give up 0.1% of our GDP each year.”

How fast can sea levels rise? That obviously depends on just how hot it gets. A stunning 2011 paper in Science concluded that paleoclimate data suggest CO2 “may have at least twice the effect on global temperatures than currently projected by computer models.” It found that on our current emissions path, CO2 levels in the air in 2100 will hit levels last seen when the Earth was 29°F (16°C) hotter — and remember, we’d expect polar regions to see a temperature rise of 50 percent to 100 percent higher than the global average.

There is evidence that seas can rise as fast as two inches per year for decades (see here and here). But there may not be any true paleoclimate analog to what is projected to happen in the next century alone — temperature rise in the Arctic may well exceed 20°F by a great deal. On top of that, the West Antarctic ice sheet is grounded below sea level and considered to be unstable (see here).

Both ice sheet loss and sea level rise are accelerating. And analyses suggest that sea level rise could hit four to six feet by 2100 on our current emissions path. After that, sea level could continue rising five to ten feet (or more) a century until all the ice melts. And even if it takes two millennia or longer for the ice to go, we may pass the tipping point at which a total melt-out is essentially unstoppable by 2100.

For those who are unconcerned about our impact on humans living in the year 3000 and beyond, consider this. How precisely would our children and grandchildren adapt in the second half of this century to sea level rise, knowing that seas are projected to rise, say, six to 12 inches a decade for a long, long, long time? How do you build ports and coastal defenses in such a world? How do you even decide how much to spend to protect cities on the East Coast at that time, knowing the inexorable sea level rise — and ever worsening storm surges — that they face?

Hal Wanless, chair of the geological sciences department at University of Miami, tells Nat Geo:


Quote:

“I cannot envision southeastern Florida having many people at the end of this century.”

Here is a close-up of the East Coast once Homo sapiens sapiens gets through with it:

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/216a.jpg

The West Coast is in slightly better shape but as Nat Geo explains, “In California, San Francisco’s hills would become a cluster of islands and the Central Valley a giant bay. The Gulf of California would spread north past the latitude of San Diego — not that there’d be a San Diego.”

If we let this happen, we definitely need to come up with a name to replace Homo sapiens sapiens. I’d vote provisionally for Homo “sapiens” sapiens, but we might consider Fervens tardius amentes Rana, which is the best internet translation into Latin I could get for slowly boiling brainless frog.”

And yet another vested interest post from #

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:38am:

And yet another vested interest post from #

Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:40am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests

You're welcome.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:41am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome.

Generous people like you must really love your kids

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:52am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids

Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:53am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:52am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway.

No you don't  :-*

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 1:09am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:53am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:52am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway. No you don't  :-*

Yeah I do

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 1:17am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:09am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:53am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:52am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway. No you don't  :-* Yeah I do

They know you don't!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 1:19am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:17am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:09am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:53am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:52am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway. No you don't  :-* Yeah I do They know you don't!

Met them have you???
Sorry, I love them far too much to want them to have to live in poverty, or on a subsistence farm growing their own lentils, while some opportunistic conmen become billionaires, trading on   negativity and doomsayer predictions.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 1:30am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:19am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:17am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 1:09am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:53am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:52am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:41am: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:40am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # Wow, thanks for teaching the concept of vested interests You're welcome. Generous people likd you must really love your kids Well, I love my nieces and nephews anyway. No you don't  :-* Yeah I do They know you don't! Met them have you??? Sorry, I love them far too much to want them to have to live in poverty, or on a subsistence farm growing their own lentils, while some opportunistic conmen become billionaires, trading on   negativity and doomsayer predictions.

you can't hide- they know you hate 'em   :o

I thought I invented the term "confusionists" about 9 years ago.  The last IPCC report showed a maximum 1 metre rise by the end of the century, although very credible work by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave in Environmental Research letters show a 2 metre rise under the Business as Usual emission scenario. The IPCC seem to have taken a very conservative approach, favouring dynamic modelling work over the semi empirical approach.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article

Whichever way you look at it, time doesn't end in 2100. Eventually the Ice Sheets will melt, but it might take some time. 


DRAH - Be good.

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:50am:

I thought I invented the term "confusionists" about 9 years ago.  The last IPCC report showed a maximum 1 metre rise by the end of the century, although very credible work by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave in Environmental Research letters show a 2 metre rise under the Business as Usual emission scenario. The IPCC seem to have taken a very conservative approach, favouring dynamic modelling work over the semi empirical approach. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/044035/article Whichever way you look at it, time doesn't end in 2100. Eventually the Ice Sheets will melt, but it might take some time.  DRAH - Be good.

It's ok Muso. We know that 'hate the children' is DRAH's standard response when he can't find a sound byte that works, and he might have to think.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 12:38am:

And yet another vested interest post from #

What vested interest?

# wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # What vested interest?

"Society "  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ... i'm telling ya he fair dinkum hates his only blood and the truly hilarious thing is he actually doesn't even know it  :D haha,.. yeh really funny WHO ARE THE TERRORISTS???  :o

If all the ice melted?

Well, that means no more, "Scotch on the Rocks"!

I live 300 metres above sea level, bring it on.

I think that the world would opt to nuke the tropical latitudes of the ocean (either side of the equator) long before they would even get anywhere near 100ft rise in sea levels. The evaporation levels would cause a massive level of storms and rainfall that would fall on areas (including the Sahara and Australian desert) that would then lead to a soaking up of excess water. The sea levels would recede to an acceptable level, and then the scientists of the world could come up with strategies to prevent the rising of sea levels again.

In the meantime, scientists have had a hard time trying to explain why ocean levels have fallen atleast 7 cm in the last few years. Is it because of all that rain we have been getting?

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 10:47pm:

In the meantime, scientists have had a hard time trying to explain why ocean levels have fallen atleast 7 cm in the last few years. Is it because of all that rain we have been getting?

You're way out of date. The level has recovered, and then some. It was discussed here a few months ago.

muso wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 10:47pm: In the meantime, scientists have had a hard time trying to explain why ocean levels have fallen atleast 7 cm in the last few years. Is it because of all that rain we have been getting? You're way out of date. The level has recovered, and then some. It was discussed here a few months ago.

Well, eventually the water was going to make its way to the sea. But I doubt that it got back to pre-1990s levels, and then some. Geez, we got waterlogged earlier this year, and there hasn't been any word about the further falling of sea levels. So I wonder what your story is regarding flooding relieving sea levels.

# wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # What vested interest?

Joe Romm founded a company called the 'Center for Energy and Climate Solutions' which got paid by business and US state governments to advise on saving energy and cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emmissions, and he currently works for The Center for American Progress, which is an advocacy organisation. So as long as people still believe in AGW, he keeps getting paid. THAT is a vested interest, his financial future depends on the idea of AGW.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

If all the ice melted? Well, that means no more, "Scotch on the Rocks"!

And harbourside properties are a little farther inland.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 13^th, 2013 at 11:58pm:

muso wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 10:58pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 10:47pm: In the meantime, scientists have had a hard time trying to explain why ocean levels have fallen atleast 7 cm in the last few years. Is it because of all that rain we have been getting? You're way out of date. The level has recovered, and then some. It was discussed here a few months ago. Well, eventually the water was going to make its way to the sea. But I doubt that it got back to pre-1990s levels, and then some. Geez, we got waterlogged earlier this year, and there hasn't been any word about the further falling of sea levels. So I wonder what your story is regarding flooding relieving sea levels.

It was a lot more localised earlier this year, and mainly on the coast.  I can see you're a bit out of touch with the data. (highlighted)

We discussed this quite some time ago on here.

You can see the dip and recovery on this graph:

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/files/2013_rel8/sl_ns_global.png

Nice graph muso.


Denialists will interpret that as "downward" trend over the last year, therefore disproving all the accumlated science on climate change.

;D

Quote:

If all the ice melted

Antartica would be a temperate climate.  Lot's of fossil fuels and minerals down there to exploit too.

:)

So that is from the satellites. The satellite figures are calibrated using tide gauges.

Tide gauges themselves need to be zeroed because some land masses rise, others subside. Hillarys in WA has subsided by about 6mm/ year. But BOM don't worry about that, they're only interested in sea level rises from global warming. So no adjustment of the gauges.

If you Google "hillarys subsidence sea level rise" you will see what I mean.

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 7:06pm:

So that is from the satellites. The satellite figures are calibrated using tide gauges.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Yep, that's just the start point. If the start point is useless so is the "data".

edit: the satellites need a base figure they are not inherently omniscient.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 12:03am:

# wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 8:01pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 13th, 2013 at 12:38am: And yet another vested interest post from # What vested interest? Joe Romm founded a company called the 'Center for Energy and Climate Solutions' which got paid by business and US state governments to advise on saving energy and cutting pollution and greenhouse gas emmissions, and he currently works for The Center for American Progress, which is an advocacy organisation. So as long as people still believe in AGW, he keeps getting paid. THAT is a vested interest, his financial future depends on the idea of AGW.

Wow! It's a conspiracy, isn't it? Have you met Ajax?

lee wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Yep, that's just the start point. If the start point is useless so is the "data". edit: the satellites need a base figure they are not inherently omniscient.

You sound like you think you know. I was like that once.

Are you actually qualified or do you just heed sources that say what you want to believe? Confirmation bias is difficult to avoid.

I read scholarly articles on climate change, the independence or otherwise of climate models as well as some blog sites, because they make a handy collection point for articles. Then try to analyse them, looking for cases where the conclusion seems to be not necessarily in accordance with the evidence provided. eg if something happens rarely, is happening now therefore it must be climate change.

Then sift through the detritus and see what seems likely.

Much better than relying on MSM.

Can you spot the missing GHG from this pie chart?

http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/global.html

note the (dot),

I didn't go there, but I presume you mean water? Water is a follower - a feedback.

Water vapour is in fact the largest Greenhouse Gas. It rates a mention at the EPA as well as lowly wiki.

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

Water vapour is in fact the largest Greenhouse Gas. It rates a mention at the EPA as well as lowly wiki.

Next they'll try and reduce water vapour, maybe ban kettles or something.  ;D

muso wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 3:53pm:

I didn't go there, but I presume you mean water? Water is a follower - a feedback.

I don't get what you mean.

Do you mean water vapour is a lagging indicator of AGW, as is CO2?

BTW, I haven't found a study yet that has determined a tipping point at which CO2 flip-flops between lagging/leading indication.

# wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

Are you actually qualified or do you just heed sources that say what you want to believe? ...

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 12:42am:

I read scholarly articles on climate change, the independence or otherwise of climate models as well as some blog sites, because they make a handy collection point for articles. Then try to analyse them, looking for cases where the conclusion seems to be not necessarily in accordance with the evidence provided.

I'll take that as a no and a yes, in that order.


# wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 8:13pm:

... Confirmation bias is difficult to avoid.

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 12:42am:

... Then sift through the detritus and see what seems likely.

Which, no doubt, reliably confirms what you already believe.


lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 12:42am:

Much better than relying on MSM.

You could try relying on the best qualified.

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 11:58am:

muso wrote on Nov 15th, 2013 at 3:53pm: I didn't go there, but I presume you mean water? Water is a follower - a feedback. I don't get what you mean. Do you mean water vapour is a lagging indicator of AGW, as is CO2? BTW, I haven't found a study yet that has determined a tipping point at which CO2 flip-flops between lagging/leading indication.

That's because you read the wrong kind of blog. It's not a question of lagging or leading. It's an equilibrium.

If the temperature drops, water vapour drops out of the atmosphere. Really cold air is very dry. In other words, as the atmosphere heats up due to one forcing or another, more water vapour evaporates and ends up in the atmosphere.  It's a feedback, whereas carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride are all greenhouse gases that give rise to radiative forcing.

If you cool down the atmosphere, those gases stay in the atmosphere, whereas water vapour drops out.

The two major positive forcings are solar forcings and greenhouse gas forcings.

Do you understand how greenhouse gases work?

If you don't understand forcings and feedbacks , might I suggest that your attempts at self education in the subject are arse about. You should start with the basics.

These blogs that you read are engineered to confuse the gullible, the downright silly and the senile, but they often catch out others.  I don't blame them. Real science makes their head hurt. Simple seductive lies are much easier on the grey matter.

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

Water vapour is in fact the largest Greenhouse Gas. It rates a mention at the EPA as well as lowly wiki.

In an empirical sense, what percentage of the greenhouse effect is due to water and what proportion is due to carbon dioxide?

'Water vapor is one of the most important elements of the climate system. A greenhouse gas, like carbon dioxide, it represents around 80 percent of total greenhouse gas mass in the atmosphere and 90 percent of greenhouse gas volume.

Water vapor and clouds account for 66 to 85 percent of the greenhouse effect, compared to a range of 9 to 26 percent for CO2. So why all the attention on carbon dioxide and its ilk? Is water vapor the real culprit causing global warming?


Source: yaleclimatemediaforum

But that was just a quick google.

edit:
'If one pursues the question of how much of the greenhouse effect is due to each of the various greenhouse gases one finds a perplexing variety of answers in the literature. One source says that 95 percent of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, another 98 percent. These figures may be referring to the proportion, by weight or volume, of water vapor among the greenhouse gases of the atmosphere. Another source says that proportion water vapor is responsible for is between 36 and 70 percent. Water droplets in clouds account for another 10 to 15 percent so water as liquid or vapor accounts for between 46 and 85 percent of the greenhouse effect. The same source attributes 9 to 26 percent of the greenhouse effect to carbon dioxide (CO2). '

sjsu.edu/ faculty

Well as I said earlier, water vapour concentration is a consequence of temperature. Increase the temperature due to increased CO2 or increased solar forcing and more water vapour evaporates, thereby multiplying the effect. On a time scale over about 100 years, it's around 65%.

And seeing as we apparently have more ice and an hiatus, CO2 can't be having such a great extent. All this at a time of increasing CO2. So CO2 either doesn't have as much effect as postulated, or there is a counterbalancing effect that the climate scientists have figured out yet.

I am not sure that man has attained omniscience.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Nov 14^th, 2013 at 8:13am:

Nice graph muso. Denialists will interpret that as "downward" trend over the last year, therefore disproving all the accumlated science on climate change. ;D

According to the graph, the sea levels have risen 90mm in the last 30 years of my life. I call bullshit! That would be noticeable to anyone 50 years old living near the coastline.

More water vapor, more water to fall on the continent of Antarctica and freezes. Lower sea levels. More water vapor, travelling further. Makes inland lakes. Lower sea levels.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 9:59pm:

More water vapor, more water to fall on the continent of Antarctica and freezes. Lower sea levels. More water vapor, travelling further. Makes inland lakes. Lower sea levels.

In terms of rainfall Antarctica is the driest continent in the world. Basically a desert

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 10:37pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 9:59pm: More water vapor, more water to fall on the continent of Antarctica and freezes. Lower sea levels. More water vapor, travelling further. Makes inland lakes. Lower sea levels. In terms of rainfall Antarctica is the driest continent in the world. Basically a desert

Yeah, but if the place got more rain, it would freeze more on the continent. Nevermind what the forum topic says. There's always going to be a counter to the claim that the ice melts.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 10:37pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 9:59pm: More water vapor, more water to fall on the continent of Antarctica and freezes. Lower sea levels. More water vapor, travelling further. Makes inland lakes. Lower sea levels. In terms of rainfall Antarctica is the driest continent in the world. Basically a desert Yeah, but if the place got more rain, it would freeze more on the continent. Nevermind what the forum topic says. There's always going to be a counter to the claim that the ice melts.

and what is that claim?

what are you trying to say in this forum?

What is the gist of your argument?

What exactly is your position on this very important issue?

Who are you, you filthy rotten walrus anal rim drip

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 11:00pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 10:37pm: UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 9:59pm: More water vapor, more water to fall on the continent of Antarctica and freezes. Lower sea levels. More water vapor, travelling further. Makes inland lakes. Lower sea levels. In terms of rainfall Antarctica is the driest continent in the world. Basically a desert Yeah, but if the place got more rain, it would freeze more on the continent. Nevermind what the forum topic says. There's always going to be a counter to the claim that the ice melts.

WorldSacred, there's so much ignorance in your post that I hardly know where to start.

Let's just say that Antarctica is really, really cold. So cold that much of the ice goes straight from solid to vapour. This is called sublimation.

Most of the water that enters the atmosphere tends to fall as rain closer to the equator. By the time the air circulates to the poles it's very dry, so there's little precipitation there.

While there will always be counter claims, the consensus among the best qualified scientists seems to be that the planet as a whole is losing ice. I can't claim to know better than the best qualified; can you?

muso, the pressure is also important in determining whether sublimation can take place

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

muso, the pressure is also important in determining whether sublimation can take place

True; lower pressures increase sublimation but, at the temperatures of Antarctica, it does happen at standard (atmospheric) pressure.

# wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 10:45am: muso, the pressure is also important in determining whether sublimation can take place True; lower pressures increase sublimation but, at the temperatures of Antarctica, it does happen at standard (atmospheric) pressure.

I don't think so

Follow the 1 Atmosphere line on this graph. You will see that for ice to reach a gaseous state, it must pass through a liquid state first.

You will notice that for ice to change to a gas, without going through a liquid state, the pressure needs to be a lot lower. This is how vacuum freeze drying occurs.

So if you can get to low pressures (below 0.006 ATM) then ice can undergo sublimation. (see how the TRIPLE point is determined on the graph)

Do you know of any pressure conditions in the Antarctic that have these sorts of vacuum type pressures?

---

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 11:08am:

# wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 10:52am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 10:45am: muso, the pressure is also important in determining whether sublimation can take place True; lower pressures increase sublimation but, at the temperatures of Antarctica, it does happen at standard (atmospheric) pressure. I don't think so Follow the 1 Atmosphere line on this graph. ...

Take a deep breath, draw back for perspective and think it through.

If you put something in the freezer unwrapped, does it dry out? What happens to the moisture?

# wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

If you put something in the freezer unwrapped, does it dry out? What happens to the moisture?

Chimp is thinking too literally, but I can see where you are both coming from. Even at a temperature of Minus 30, ice has a vapour pressure of about 40 Pa. That's very low, but with high winds, you get some solid to gas vaporisation.  At -20C, the vapour pressure increases to 100Pa.

OK, theoretically at -30degrees, there is a monomolecular layer of liquid water. I won't go into that.

Google dry valleys in Antarctica.

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 12:39pm:

# wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 12:21pm: If you put something in the freezer unwrapped, does it dry out? What happens to the moisture? Chimp is thinking too literally, but I can see where you are both coming from. Even at a temperature of Minus 30, ice has a vapour pressure of about 40 Pa. That's very low, but with high winds, you get some solid to gas vaporisation.  At -20C, the vapour pressure increases to 100Pa. OK, theoretically at -30degrees, there is a monomolecular layer of liquid water. I won't go into that. Google dry valleys in Antarctica.

not unless the pressure is below the triple point for water (ie pressure is below 0.006 atm, and about 0 deg C). Its not a matter of thinking literally. Its a matter of # not understanding the basics of a pressure-temperature phase diagram for water

For sublimation to occur, the conditions must be below the triple point.

This graph has been well established in science for some time now.

http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/water-phase-diagram1.jpg

for CO2 the triple point is obviously different
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/co2_phase_diagram.gif

...maybe I should run some FREE classes on P-T phase diagrams.

I wonder if # and muso are interested?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

...maybe I should run some FREE classes on P-T phase diagrams. ...

No, chimp. You're too hung up on graphs and theory.

Can you honestly say you've never seen freezer burn? By the way, the temperature in most freezers is set at around -18C.

# wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 12:53pm: ...maybe I should run some FREE classes on P-T phase diagrams. ... No, chimp. You're too hung up on graphs and theory. Can you honestly say you've never seen freezer burn? By the way, the temperature in most freezers is set at around -18C.

lol

are you still claiming that ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures?

Did you notice the Triple Point for CO2 in the above P-T phase diagram? The triple point pressure value was GREATER than atmospheric pressure. Kind of explains how dry ice behaves doesn't it #. Dry Ice (solid CO2) CAN undergo sublimation at atmospheric temperature (in fact up to 5.11 ATM) at certain temperatures.

Water on the other hand has a Triple Point of (0.01 C, 0.00603 ATM) which is way below atmospheric conditions.

Look up how they freeze dry products - check out what vacuum pressures are needed and whether they can achieve freeze drying at atmospheric pressures.

cheers

# and muso exposed, embarrassed but deflecting in order to mitigate bruising to their fragile egos and pride.

You should both just admit you made an incorrect statement in public and move on, rather than trying to change the characteristics of the phases of water as depicted in high school science text books.

I don't really have time for people who are too proud to admit an error. We all make them. Nothing to be ashamed about

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:10pm:

... I don't really have time for people who are too proud to admit an error. We all make them. Nothing to be ashamed about

Have freezer; seen freezer burn.

This thread is getting silly -

all the land locked ice will never melt -
not in 100 of our lifetimes.

And yet according to a study Ice in Antactica is increasing by extent and volume.

Of course that's only going on a Google English translation of a German study, with the link to the study if you wish to read it in the original German or do your own translation.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

...maybe I should run some FREE classes on P-T phase diagrams. I wonder if # and muso are interested?

Chimpy,

I do know about Phase diagrams. I cut my teeth on them back in my oil and gas days.

I also know that you get "sublimation" via monomolecular liquid layers.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538066


Quote:

Climatological observations and predicted sublimation rates at Lake Hoare, Antarctica.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

This thread is getting silly - all the land locked ice will never melt - not in 100 of our lifetimes.

True, but that's not what the dispute is about. Ice has a non zero vapour pressure, even at minus 30 degrees.

Phase diagrams represent equilibrium conditions.

Chimp and # are actually both correct in their ways.

Chimp - Here is a table showing vapour pressures of ice at different temperatures. What do you think that implies?

http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/VaporPressureICEvsTemp.pdf

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 1:38pm: This thread is getting silly - all the land locked ice will never melt - not in 100 of our lifetimes. True, but that's not what the dispute is about. Ice has a non zero vapour pressure, even at minus 30 degrees. Phase diagrams represent equilibrium conditions. Chimp and # are actually both correct in their ways. Chimp - Here is a table showing vapour pressures of ice at different temperatures. What do you think that implies? http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/VaporPressureICEvsTemp.pdf

It implies that even frozen ice gives off a vapour of water.

Nowhere here do I see any proof that all the ice could ever melt.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

muso wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 2:16pm: Bobby. wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 1:38pm: This thread is getting silly - all the land locked ice will never melt - not in 100 of our lifetimes. True, but that's not what the dispute is about. Ice has a non zero vapour pressure, even at minus 30 degrees. Phase diagrams represent equilibrium conditions. Chimp and # are actually both correct in their ways. Chimp - Here is a table showing vapour pressures of ice at different temperatures. What do you think that implies? http://www2.bren.ucsb.edu/~dturney/WebResources_13/WaterSteamIceProperties/VaporPressureICEvsTemp.pdf It implies that even frozen ice gives off a vapour of water. Nowhere here do I see any proof that all the ice could ever melt.

The ice that melts on a seasonal basis is sea ice.  There is no substantial melting of the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, and it's unlikely to be any different for at least the next 300-1000 years

Bobby. wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:38pm:

... all the land locked ice will never melt - ...

Never say never.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 2:19pm:

... Nowhere here do I see any proof that all the ice could ever melt.

Define "proof".

From the perspective that, in principle, all things are possible; it really depends on how badly we screw up.
Quote:

We don’t know where global warming will stop but the worst case scenario is that the earth will become like its sister planet Venus, with  a temperature of 250 degrees C ...

Do you reckon that might melt the ice?

lee wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:41pm:

And yet according to a study ...

A report, from an unreliable source, on a study.

Are so Wegener are sceptics too. I didn't know that.

# wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 1:10pm: ... I don't really have time for people who are too proud to admit an error. We all make them. Nothing to be ashamed about Have freezer; seen freezer burn.

you are the one who has claimed that frozen water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressure conditions (lol - false statement I'm afraid)

Study this high school level Pressure-temperature phase diagram for water below.

At atmospheric pressure frozen water must go through a liquid state before turning into a gas.

You need to be under the Triple Point (0.01 C, 0.00603 ATM) for sublimation of frozen water to occur. That's the criteria used for freeze drying food.

Check it out, learn something, rather than deflecting and protecting your fragile ego.

---

Check the other thread. It has nothing to do with egos.

muso wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 1:59pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 12:53pm: ...maybe I should run some FREE classes on P-T phase diagrams. I wonder if # and muso are interested? Chimpy, I do know about Phase diagrams. I cut my teeth on them back in my oil and gas days. I also know that you get "sublimation" via monomolecular liquid layers. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11538066 Quote: Climatological observations and predicted sublimation rates at Lake Hoare, Antarctica.

and how is a MONO-MOLECULAR layer of water molecules classed as a liquid?

In any case, how does one discuss sublimation without referring to a pressure-temperature phase diagram?

These are bulk processes. To isolate monolayers of water on a surface and talk about the state of that layer and how it moves to a gaseous state needs more explanation don't you think?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 6:07pm:

... how does one discuss sublimation without referring to a pressure-temperature phase diagram? ...

Experience?

You're saying that, in theory, ice cannot sublime at standard pressure. I'm pointing out that, in practice, it does.

Try this experiment:
- put a naked ice cube in a freezer (a freezer with a fan to circulate the cold will work best);
- come back in a month or two and you will find that the cube is measurably smaller.

What do you think happened to the ice that's gone missing?

# wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:07pm: ... how does one discuss sublimation without referring to a pressure-temperature phase diagram? ... Experience? You're saying that, in theory, ice cannot sublime at standard pressure. I'm pointing out that, in practice, it does. Try this experiment: - put a naked ice cube in a freezer (a freezer with a fan to circulate the cold will work best); - come back in a month or two and you will find that the cube is measurably smaller. What do you think happened to the ice that's gone missing?

is this a closed system?

why do you need circulating air?

what temperature is the air?

What humidity is in the freezer?

Do you open the door during the few months you conduct this meticulous experiment?

Are the seals on the freezer perfect?

where do you think your little ice cube is located on this phase diagram?

Who are you?

---

I looked again at WUWT today. An article about a new volcano found under the ice in the West Antarctic.

Of course WUWT being unreliable as a repeater of items, I went to Nature website, as the SOURCE, to get the real deal.

I wonder if that may be a source of West Antarctic ice melt?

lee wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

I wonder if that may be a source of West Antarctic ice melt?

No ... Tony Abbott is the source of the West Antarctic ice melt  ;)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

# wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:07pm: ... how does one discuss sublimation without referring to a pressure-temperature phase diagram? ... Experience? You're saying that, in theory, ice cannot sublime at standard pressure. I'm pointing out that, in practice, it does. Try this experiment: - put a naked ice cube in a freezer (a freezer with a fan to circulate the cold will work best); - come back in a month or two and you will find that the cube is measurably smaller. What do you think happened to the ice that's gone missing? is this a closed system?1 why do you need circulating air?2 what temperature is the air?3 What humidity is in the freezer?4 Do you open the door during the few months you conduct this meticulous experiment?5 Are the seals on the freezer perfect?6 where do you think your little ice cube is located on this phase diagram?7 Who are you?8

Chimp, you're evidently struggling to rationalise your blunder.
¹ As closed as any real-world freezer.
² Did I say it was necessary?
³ As I said elsewhere, most freezers are set at around -18C.
⁴ What would be the humidity in any domestic freezer? Probably a good deal higher than Antarctica, I'd guess.
⁵ Why would I?
⁶ Is anything?
⁷ No idea. I'm not pretending to pontificate on science. Just reporting real world experience.
⁸ Myself.

Are you honestly saying that you've never noticed that ice cubes left in a freezer slowly sublime? That foods inadequately sealed lose their moisture in a freezer (AKA freezer burn)?

On another tack: can water vaporise below its boiling point? If so, how? If not, how come it does?

# wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 2:46pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 8:35pm: # wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:31pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 17th, 2013 at 6:07pm: ... how does one discuss sublimation without referring to a pressure-temperature phase diagram? ... Experience? You're saying that, in theory, ice cannot sublime at standard pressure. I'm pointing out that, in practice, it does. Try this experiment: - put a naked ice cube in a freezer (a freezer with a fan to circulate the cold will work best); - come back in a month or two and you will find that the cube is measurably smaller. What do you think happened to the ice that's gone missing? is this a closed system?1 why do you need circulating air?2 what temperature is the air?3 What humidity is in the freezer?4 Do you open the door during the few months you conduct this meticulous experiment?5 Are the seals on the freezer perfect?6 where do you think your little ice cube is located on this phase diagram?7 Who are you?8 Chimp, you're evidently struggling to rationalise your blunder. 1 As closed as any real-world freezer. 2 Did I say it was necessary? 3 As I said elsewhere, most freezers are set at around -18C. 4 What would be the humidity in any domestic freezer? Probably a good deal higher than Antarctica, I'd guess. 5 Why would I? 6 Is anything? 7 No idea. I'm not pretending to pontificate on science. Just reporting real world experience. 8 Myself. Are you honestly saying that you've never noticed that ice cubes left in a freezer slowly sublime? That foods inadequately sealed lose their moisture in a freezer (AKA freezer burn)? On another tack: can water vaporise below its boiling point? If so, how? If not, how come it does?

who am I talking with now?

explain the mechanism whereby ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures.

youre not going to discuss your answer with muso and start to waffle on about monolayers of water without really explaining anything - AGAIN?

(the boiling point of water is also dependent ont eh ambient pressure - so you can get water to boil at room temperature if you like, by decreasing the pressure - but that's the point, you change the PRESSURE. You are stating that water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures, two orders of magnitude higher than the Triple Point pressure. Explain the mechanism muso)

# can you see how the boiling point decreases on this graph as you lower the ambient pressure?

P-T phase diagrams are very useful tools in describing basic science don't you think?

Now explain your complicated pseudo-sublimation process at pressures above the Triple Point pressure

---

Global warming make chimp go cwazy  :D

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 3:17pm:

... who am I talking with now?1 explain the mechanism whereby ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures.2 youre not going to discuss your answer with muso and start to waffle on about monolayers of water without really explaining anything - AGAIN?3 (the boiling point of water is also dependent ont eh ambient pressure - so you can get water to boil at room temperature if you like, by decreasing the pressure - but that's the point, you change the PRESSURE. You are stating that water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures, two orders of magnitude higher than the Triple Point pressure. Explain the mechanism muso)4

¹ Me
² You think that what I can't explain can't be happening, even if it is?
³ Reporting, not explaining.
⁴ If water cannot vaporise at standard temperature and pressure, then how come laundry dries on the line?

# wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 3:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:17pm: ... who am I talking with now?1 explain the mechanism whereby ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures.2 youre not going to discuss your answer with muso and start to waffle on about monolayers of water without really explaining anything - AGAIN?3 (the boiling point of water is also dependent ont eh ambient pressure - so you can get water to boil at room temperature if you like, by decreasing the pressure - but that's the point, you change the PRESSURE. You are stating that water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures, two orders of magnitude higher than the Triple Point pressure. Explain the mechanism muso)4 1 Me 2 You think that what I can't explain can't be happening, even if it is? 3 Reporting, not explaining. 4 If water cannot vaporise at standard temperature and pressure, then how come laundry dries on the line?

Its not an examination nor is it an interrogation #

You made a claim that frozen water can undergo sublimation at pressures much greater than the Triple Point conditions, (ie at atmospheric pressure which is about 166 times greater than the Triple point pressure of 0.00603 ATM).

Explain the mechanism and theory that enables this to happen.

I am always keen to learn.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

and what is that claim? what are you trying to say in this forum? What is the gist of your argument? What exactly is your position on this very important issue? Who are you, you filthy rotten walrus anal rim drip

You're claiming that it would be possible for all the ice in the world could melt. I'm saying that's it's impossible to see that scenario, because the polar regions always freeze during the winter. The warmest parts of the poles hardly ever melt during the summer, and that only lasts 5 months.

And if you said what you said to my face, I would put you on your arse, leaving you crying for your mum.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 11:06pm: and what is that claim? what are you trying to say in this forum? What is the gist of your argument? What exactly is your position on this very important issue? Who are you, you filthy rotten walrus anal rim drip You're claiming that it would be possible for all the ice in the world could melt. I'm saying that's it's impossible to see that scenario, because the polar regions always freeze during the winter. The warmest parts of the poles hardly ever melt during the summer, and that only lasts 5 months. And if you said what you said to my face, I would put you on your arse, leaving you crying for your mum.

did you just get out of bed you deranged smelly cultist sloth maggot freak fascist

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 3:42pm:

# wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:17pm: ... who am I talking with now?1 explain the mechanism whereby ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures.2 youre not going to discuss your answer with muso and start to waffle on about monolayers of water without really explaining anything - AGAIN?3 (the boiling point of water is also dependent ont eh ambient pressure - so you can get water to boil at room temperature if you like, by decreasing the pressure - but that's the point, you change the PRESSURE. You are stating that water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures, two orders of magnitude higher than the Triple Point pressure. Explain the mechanism muso)4 1 Me 2 You think that what I can't explain can't be happening, even if it is? 3 Reporting, not explaining. 4 If water cannot vaporise at standard temperature and pressure, then how come laundry dries on the line? Its not an examination nor is it an interrogation # You made a claim1 that frozen water can undergo sublimation at pressures much greater than the Triple Point conditions, (ie at atmospheric pressure which is about 166 times greater than the Triple point pressure of 0.00603 ATM). Explain the mechanism2 and theory that enables this to happen. I am always keen to learn.

¹ No Chimp, I reported an observation, the accuracy of which you have not denied.
² You can't deny the fact, yet you appear to deny the possibility. Fascinating.

Amusing that you can't figure out why laundry dries.

# wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:42pm: # wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 3:17pm: ... who am I talking with now?1 explain the mechanism whereby ice can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures.2 youre not going to discuss your answer with muso and start to waffle on about monolayers of water without really explaining anything - AGAIN?3 (the boiling point of water is also dependent ont eh ambient pressure - so you can get water to boil at room temperature if you like, by decreasing the pressure - but that's the point, you change the PRESSURE. You are stating that water can undergo sublimation at atmospheric pressures, two orders of magnitude higher than the Triple Point pressure. Explain the mechanism muso)4 1 Me 2 You think that what I can't explain can't be happening, even if it is? 3 Reporting, not explaining. 4 If water cannot vaporise at standard temperature and pressure, then how come laundry dries on the line? Its not an examination nor is it an interrogation # You made a claim1 that frozen water can undergo sublimation at pressures much greater than the Triple Point conditions, (ie at atmospheric pressure which is about 166 times greater than the Triple point pressure of 0.00603 ATM). Explain the mechanism2 and theory that enables this to happen. I am always keen to learn. 1 No Chimp, I reported an observation, the accuracy of which you have not denied. 2 You can't deny the fact, yet you appear to deny the possibility. Fascinating. Amusing that you can't figure out why laundry dries.

so you will not even entertain a public explanation for the claims you make?

muso will be very fascinated in your performance in this particular thread

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 6:31pm:

did you just get out of bed you deranged smelly cultist sloth maggot freak fascist

No, I'm just sick of f***wits like yourself going around making childish name calling, because you can't even make an informed post of any value.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 11:45pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 6:31pm: did you just get out of bed you deranged smelly cultist sloth maggot freak fascist No, I'm just sick of f***wits like yourself going around making childish name calling, because you can't even make an informed post of any value.

HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NAME CALLING

THESE ARE ELITE MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENTS GIVEN OUT WITHOUT CHARGE YOU putrid rotting foul decaying skunk carcass freak maggot clown.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 11:06pm: and what is that claim? what are you trying to say in this forum? What is the gist of your argument? What exactly is your position on this very important issue? Who are you, you filthy rotten walrus anal rim drip You're claiming that it would be possible for all the ice in the world could melt. I'm saying that's it's impossible to see that scenario, because the polar regions always freeze during the winter. The warmest parts of the poles hardly ever melt during the summer, and that only lasts 5 months. And if you said what you said to my face, I would put you on your arse, leaving you crying for your mum.

Wow, like someone can't handle an Internet forum and starts thinking violent thoughts  ;D let's bring on the nazi references ....  :o

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 5:30pm:

And if you said what you said to my face, I would put you on your arse, leaving you crying for your mum.

You'd do that to a woman?


Quote:

You're claiming that it would be possible for all the ice in the world could melt. I'm saying that's it's impossible to see that scenario, because the polar regions always freeze during the winter.

You'd have to go back 50 million years to find essentially ice-free polar regions.

lee wrote on Nov 15^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

Water vapour is in fact the largest Greenhouse Gas. It rates a mention at the EPA as well as lowly wiki.

The hydrological cycle says what???  :o

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 6:31pm: did you just get out of bed you deranged smelly cultist sloth maggot freak fascist HOW DARE YOU ACCUSE ME OF NAME CALLING THESE ARE ELITE MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC ASSESSMENTS GIVEN OUT WITHOUT CHARGE YOU putrid rotting foul decaying skunk carcass freak maggot clown.

When you go about acting all indignant about being accused of childish name calling, but then get quoted doing as charged.... twice -- I dared.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 5:46pm:

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 5:30pm: Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 16th, 2013 at 11:06pm: and what is that claim? what are you trying to say in this forum? What is the gist of your argument? What exactly is your position on this very important issue? Who are you, you filthy rotten walrus anal rim drip You're claiming that it would be possible for all the ice in the world could melt. I'm saying that's it's impossible to see that scenario, because the polar regions always freeze during the winter. The warmest parts of the poles hardly ever melt during the summer, and that only lasts 5 months. And if you said what you said to my face, I would put you on your arse, leaving you crying for your mum. Wow, like someone can't handle an Internet forum and starts thinking violent thoughts  ;D let's bring on the nazi references ....  :o

I have been using the internet forums for the past 10 years as a source of entertainment and information. I'm sure that I can (and have) handle(d) the occasional childish invectives without comment. But when they become outright abusive toward me, you just have to expect some comment back. Geez, if chumpface could put as much effort into a debate as he does looking for demeaning adjectives, he might become quite a good opponent. As such, know nought.

muso,

I suppose I shouldn't burden his mother with him crying after an arse-kicking. But it's something he firmly needs.

I still doubt that we had a completely ice free polar region.

UnSubRocky wrote on Nov 19^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:

muso, I suppose I shouldn't burden his mother with him crying after an arse-kicking. But it's something he firmly needs. I still doubt that we had a completely ice free polar region.

Believe it.  The fossils say differently. It's not even controversial.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/03/from-leafy-to-lifeless-tropical-rainforest-once-covered-antarctica/

Assuming that it was hotter back then than it is now, what's the big deal about human interactivity with the environment allegedly causing increased temperatures? Realistically, if there were no humans around back 30 million years ago, then humans burning fossil fuels now can not be responsible for the hotter than now temperatures back then.

How big is the deal?  The deal is about 7 billion. (I'll assume that you know what I'm talking about)

It was warmer during the Cambrian too. How is that in any way relevant?


Quote:

Realistically, if there were no humans around back 30 million years ago, then humans burning fossil fuels now can not be responsible for the hotter than now temperatures back then.

You've answered your own question. Is any sane person claiming that the mechanism was the same ?

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18^th, 2013 at 8:04pm:

... so you will not even entertain a public explanation for the claims you make? muso will be very fascinated in your performance in this particular thread

Chimp, your behaviour reveals much about you. I point out what happens and you behave as though it can't be true, because you don't understand how it happens.

There's probably a diagnosis for that.

# wrote on Nov 21^st, 2013 at 1:00pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 18th, 2013 at 8:04pm: ... so you will not even entertain a public explanation for the claims you make? muso will be very fascinated in your performance in this particular thread Chimp, your behaviour reveals much about you. I point out what happens and you behave as though it can't be true, because you don't understand how it happens. There's probably a diagnosis for that.

Did you run your diagnosis by muso first?

I wonder if muso will explain the "partial pressure" thing again.

riveting science

UPDATE: Tokyo study shows that the White Blood Cell count in Children has decreased from a healthy 4000+ count to about 2500. The threshold level for healthy children is 3000

its starting!

http://www.freewebs.com/godzilla14freak/godzilla.jpg

imagine believing the NUCLEAR industry when it comes to the safety and health risks associated with exposure to radiation - especially INTERNAL exposure?

I see that the Japanese mafia THE YAKUZA are involved in overseeing workers in the Fukushima clean up.

Not that they are cleaning anything up. Kind of storing it and leaking it. Plastic PVC piping  and cheap steel tanks.


985,000 deaths from the ongoing Chernobyl disaster (1985-2003) and that was one reactor that was covered quickly but now needs a new sarchophogus. Another lazy 18 billion dollars.

Imagine putting your faith in the IAEA (a UN body) who's 2nd directive is to PROMOTE the nuclear power industry.

And then we have the WHO, who signed a 1950s agreement to NEVER carry out independent health studies on radiation exposure unless the IAEA approves.

What a lovely cosy partnership

Imagine being blind to these scams?

That's right. It's all a conspiracy.

What have you got against science?

normal incidence of abnormalities found in Children's Thyroid's is less than 0.2 per 100,000 (ie 2 in every million children)

a survey of children's thyroids in the Fukushima prefecture found that about 40% had abnormalities, growths, nodules etc.,

*over 75,000 children were examined

Nothing to see here, keep moving. let the Yakuza organise the clean up.

Shhhhh...western media silent - nothing is happening - focus of paris Hiltons new song

Internal exposure to radioactive particles that lodge in body tissue and various organs is to be IGNORED by the radiation risk models.

The biggest Health Scam the world has ever seen

You could do with a nice holiday, Chimp. Radium Spa in Canada is just the place. A bit chilly at this time of year though. People pay a fortune for all that internally inhaled Radon gas.


Quote:

Did you run your diagnosis by muso first?

You are exhibiting the symptoms of chronic radiation deficiency :)

- but those are natural alpha particles. Totally different from the beta particles and gamma rays from Cesium-137 at levels lower than background.

http://www.hotsprings.ca/RADIUM_HOT_SPRINGS.php

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/bd/57/36/radium-hot-springs-pools.jpg


Quote:

I see that the Japanese mafia THE YAKUZA are involved in overseeing workers in the Fukushima clean up.

Too obscure. What you need to say is that Hitler would have approved. The H word usually tugs at the emotional heartstrings. I'll PM you with Arnie Gundersen's email address so that you can compare notes on effective scare campaigns. You can then have contests to see how many people you scare to death.

HINT 9d

After the snow falls, the crystals can be reduced by the effects of melting and sublimation. Scientists call this process ablation. For most glaciers, ablation is a phenomena dominant in the summer months. The snow also undergoes physical compaction through melting and refreezing. At first, these processes cause the original snowflakes to be transformed into small round crystals. This partly melted, compressed snow is called névé. Névé has a density exceeding 500 kilograms per cubic meter. If the névé survives the ablation that occurs during the summer months it is called firn.

Yes. This happens in places where the ambient temperature exceeds 0 degrees C for at least one part of the year.

Good information, but I stand by my previous posts. 

If all the ice melted . . .all the whisky malters would be out of business.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 10:35am:

Yes. This happens in places where the ambient temperature exceeds 0 degrees C for at least one part of the year. Good information, but I stand by my previous posts.

youre getting closer muso

Its taking a lot of energy and time to drag out the underlying mechanism from your decaying public carcass

It will come muso

be patient.

Your task is incomplete.

HINT 10e; From whence the liquid film be gotten like the solid underneath young Lucifer? Tis the flying molecules you seek or their remnants of their slumber?

bogarde73 wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 10:37am:

If all the ice melted . . .all the whisky malters would be out of business.

they will seek other sources

In my case the home brew of fermented beer from the finest of malted barley

when did Chernobyl spew its guts out again??

http://www.japanfocus.org/data/3549Fig7ThyroidCancer.png

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 10:40am:

HINT 10e; From whence the liquid film be gotten like the solid underneath young Lucifer? Tis the flying molecules you seek or their remnants of their slumber?

We're going from the sublime to the ridiculous. I don't need any clues. You need to get one. I thought you were going to phone a friend. Maybe she can help you get a clue.

At the McMurdo Dry Valleys, the temperature doesn't exceed zero degrees. Well, it's rare. Yet any ice that accumulates  sublimates pretty quickly due to katabatic winds dropping off the ice shelf. Low partial pressure of water (below the triple point pressure) => True sublimation. 

No liquid film involved.

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 4:42pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Nov 22nd, 2013 at 10:40am: HINT 10e; From whence the liquid film be gotten like the solid underneath young Lucifer? Tis the flying molecules you seek or their remnants of their slumber? We're going from the sublime to the ridiculous. I don't need any clues. You need to get one. I thought you were going to phone a friend. Maybe she can help you get a clue. At the McMurdo Dry Valleys, the temperature doesn't exceed zero degrees. Well, it's rare. Yet any ice that accumulates  sublimates pretty quickly due to katabatic winds dropping off the ice shelf. Low partial pressure of water (below the triple point pressure) => True sublimation.  No liquid film involved.

as long as you are certain muso

zoom in to what is happening at the interface between the solid surface of the ice and the air.

describe the mechanism henceforth, on an atomic and thermodynamic level

describe the driving forces of this ablative process you speatheth of young muso

We're speaking here about the conditions in the Antarctic dry valleys and the conditions that result in sublimation.

At any temperature above 0 K, there will always be a tiny   fraction of water molecules at the surface of the ice which can obtain a kinetic energy sufficient to overcome the weak intermolecular bonds (weak hydrogen bond) with their neighbours and escape the surface. In that sense, the process isn't much different from the evaporation of liquid water at temperatures well below the boiling point (for instance, water at 300 K does have a vapor pressure).

The process is endothermic. The Heat of Sublimation (ΔHsub)
is 333.5 kJ/kg. This heat comes from the environment. Katabatic winds have speeds up to 300km/hr. The temperature of the air itself is extremely low, so the sublimation is energy limited.

Obviously where the conditions are clear, the extra energy comes from the sun. 

I have no doubt that for glaciers in just about any other location, melting and interstitial water are significant factors in the ablation process, but the extremely low ambient temperatures at the Dry Valleys of Antarctica make this unlikely.  When the sublimation curve is crossed, the substance changes directly from solid to gas.

So is sublimation possible at normal atmospheric pressure? Yes of course it is.  The Phase Diagram you quoted was for a single component, namely water. The Pressure referred to is the Vapour pressure of water (Partial Pressure to be precise) , which is a tiny fraction of atmospheric pressure at low ambient temperatures.

Now depending on the exact circumstances, the katabatic wind may actually be close to its dewpoint, but of course, the absolute humidity is extremely low.  The rate of sublimation is determined by the wind velocity, temperature, dewpoint of the katabatic wind and incident solar energy.

Happy? 

muso wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2013 at 6:38pm:

We're speaking here about the conditions in the Antarctic dry valleys and the conditions that result in sublimation. At any temperature above 0 K, there will always be a tiny   fraction of water molecules at the surface of the ice which can obtain a kinetic energy sufficient to overcome the weak intermolecular bonds (weak hydrogen bond) with their neighbours and escape the surface. In that sense, the process isn't much different from the evaporation of liquid water at temperatures well below the boiling point (for instance, water at 300 K does have a vapor pressure). The process is endothermic. The Heat of Sublimation (ΔHsub) is 333.5 kJ/kg. This heat comes from the environment. Katabatic winds have speeds up to 300km/hr. The temperature of the air itself is extremely low, so the sublimation is energy limited. Obviously where the conditions are clear, the extra energy comes from the sun.  I have no doubt that for glaciers in just about any other location, melting and interstitial water are significant factors in the ablation process, but the extremely low ambient temperatures at the Dry Valleys of Antarctica make this unlikely.  So is sublimation possible at normal atmospheric pressure? Yes of course it is.  The Phase Diagram you quoted was for a single component, namely water. The Pressure referred to is the Vapour pressure of water (Partial Pressure to be precise) , which is a tiny fraction of atmospheric pressure at low ambient temperatures. Now depending on the exact circumstances, the katabatic wind may actually be close to its dewpoint, but of course, the absolute humidity is extremely low.  The rate of sublimation is determined by the wind velocity, temperature, dewpoint of the katabatic wind and incident solar energy. Happy?

now that didn't hurt