# Thread: CAN ICE MELT BE LIMITED BY THE ENERGY AVAILABLE TO MELT IT?

1. Seems like a fair, if axiomatic, question to me. Certainly not a question to be gagged.

2.

3. Originally Posted by milum
Seems like a fair, if axiomatic, question to me. Certainly not a question to be gagged.
Absolutely.

It takes a specific amount of energy to make molecules go though a state change. This is proven science.

I showed in the thread that was just locked.

Global Warming Redux: The Villain The Sun!

Marnix, you have to admit, locking the thread shortly after I pointed out the simple thermal math behind a great ice melt is suspicious...

4. Milum,

You need to clarify. Are you referring to water ice? Are you referring to the amount of energy required to melt it if no confounding factors are present?

Or, as I presume you are, are you referring to the melting of sea ice in earths oceans? If the latter, then the melt is a result of far more than just temperature and energy, contrary to the hyper-simplified scenario Wild Cobra is using as the foundation of his entire argument on this point.

As I already described in the thread, sea ice melt is also impacted by the way the ice sheet experiences calving, the nature of the splits in the ice resulting from the erosion of the melt water runoff, as well as the outward pressure created by that runoff melt water as it travels throughout the splits and calves.

On top of that, when discussing sea ice melt in earths oceans, you need to consider the currents and pressures in the ocean water itself. One factor is the location of the sea ice, and how close it is to warmer streams. However, more importantly is how the ice sheet will actually pull in warmer waters from below the ice sheet because a pressure differential is created as the cooler melt water runoff drains into the ocean water from above...

The cooler water from above creates a circulation pattern whereby the warmer waters below are pulled underneath the ice sheet leading to faster melt and greater slippage. That slippage from below the sea ice changes the rate of melt, and the lack of friction caused by an ice sheet resting on a bed of warm water decreases the stability of the ice above and leads to further calving, splitting, and erosion from melt water.

However, I'm quire sure you're just trying to stir up shit, and I sincerely question your motives for opening this thread. The other one was closed for a reason. You guys were ignoring evidence and facts, and opening anew thread won't change the accuracy of what has been presented to you in rebuttal of your arguments.

5. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Marnix, you have to admit, locking the thread shortly after I pointed out the simple thermal math behind a great ice melt is suspicious...
yes, since i have the suspicion that you and inow are starting to exchange more than a civil discussion
tone down the name calling and i'll let the thread live - otherwise, who knows

6. As the calculation mr cobra advanced presumed that all the ice expected to melt would be simply warming and liquifying under the current rays of the sun, it is of little relevance.

(Even that showed that a sea level rise of a full centimeter every three years, or a meter in 300 years, is available for the heat from a mere 1% of the solar radiation on the planet - delivered in any way, we note.)

Much of the land ice melt in Greenland, for example, seems to be via faster glacial delivery of land ice into the ocean, where there is many thousands of years worth of solar heat available to melt it very quickly.

That's apparently why the land ice melting on Greenland is proceeding somewhat faster than the alarmists predicted, and possibly accelerating.

Bu the larger point is a more sociological or "discussion" one: does anyone here think this detail of available solar energy was overlooked byt the global warming analyzers? That the bod yof professional modelers and researchers who have considered the matter and formed their estimates actually failed to consider how much solar energy on average was available to melt the ice they have predicted may melt? This assumption of asshat idiocy among the distant, TV reported scientific establishment, is not really reasonable IMHO.

7. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It takes a specific amount of energy to make molecules go though a state change. This is proven science.
I showed in the thread that was just locked.
Actually your calculation was off by a factor of more than four. The latent heat of fusion of ice is approx. 78 cal/g not 334 cal/g. Care to redo your math?

8. iceaura wrote: "...But the larger point is a more sociological or "discussion" one: does anyone here think this detail of available solar energy was overlooked by the global warming analyzers? That the body of professional modelers and researchers who have considered the matter and formed their estimates actually failed to consider how much solar energy on average was available to melt the ice they have predicted may melt? This assumption of asshat idiocy among the distant, TV reported scientific establishment, is not really reasonable IMHO."
__________________________________________________ _______

iceaura:Your faith in global warming analyzers is heart-warming. Did you not get the memo about all the memos that plotted to hide any scientific studies antithetical to the global warming shibboleth?

Which do you prefer: sitting around feeling smug about your social station or being right? :?

9. Originally Posted by milum
Your faith in global warming analyzers is heart-warming. Did you not get the memo about all the memos that plotted to hide any scientific studies antithetical to the global warming shibboleth?
Ah... of course. How could I be so silly as to maintain my acceptance of scientific fact when such damning evidence as a few quote mined emails taken way out of context are available to me. Thank you for illuminating for me why hearsay and misrepresentation of reality is so much more important than evidence, milum. You're the best!

10. Milankovich cycles at their most extreme, bring an annual variation in the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth of less than 0.1%. Yet that seemingly trivial difference can cause Earth's temperature to rise or fall by 5 degrees C. Such small inputs result in big changes probably due to GHG's.

What's the difference between total solar input, for glacial maximum and glacial minimum?

11. Originally Posted by Bunbury
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It takes a specific amount of energy to make molecules go though a state change. This is proven science.
I showed in the thread that was just locked.
Actually your calculation was off by a factor of more than four. The latent heat of fusion of ice is approx. 78 cal/g not 334 cal/g. Care to redo your math?
Ooops, you are right. Thanks for the correction.

I mixed up the numbers. 333.55 is for joules per gm. It should have been 79.72 cal/gm.

Where do you get 78?

Anyway, it's a factor of 4.184.

12. Originally Posted by Geo
Milankovich cycles at their most extreme, bring an annual variation in the total amount of sunlight reaching Earth of less than 0.1%. Yet that seemingly trivial difference can cause Earth's temperature to rise or fall by 5 degrees C. Such small inputs result in big changes probably due to GHG's.
I am on record as disagreeing with using the Milankovitch Cycle as most people do. The belief if that the 65N insolation is the number to watch. We are currently in an annual orbit where the earth is closest to the sun about January 4th each year. This leads to strong summers and cold winters in the southern hemisphere and milder winter and milder summers in the Norther hemisphere than if the earth was closest to the sun in our summertime. I agree the likely changes the total irradiance recieved by0.1%, or even less, until you factor in the changes in eccentricty.
Originally Posted by Geo
What's the difference between total solar input, for glacial maximum and glacial minimum?
Don't know.

Back to when the earth is closest to the sun. I believe insolation or the southern hemisphere is far more critical for predicting temperatures than the norther. I say this because the oceans absorb far more heat than the land does, and the southern hemisphere is far more of a ratio of water to land than the northern hemisphere is.

Now as to eccentricity. If eccentricity is 0, then there is no change for 65N insolation, or any latitude as an annual average goes. The other thing about eccentricity is the heat from the sun is about 8% different between the Aphelion is 152,097,701 km, the Perihelion is 147,098,074 km. The earth will be 3.34% closer on January 3th than it will be on July 6th this next year. Using the Inverse Square Law, that means the earths atmosphere will receive 7.91% more heat during the Perihelion than the Aphelion.

As the eccentricity lowers, so does this difference. The earths orbit will have the lowest eccentricity in another 26,000 years. This is an approximate 400,000 years cycle. One more thing to note. I absolutely believe will continue to warm for these next 26,000 years due to the earth/sun proximity.

At 0 eccentricity, the earth receives the same solar radiation year round assuming the sun maintains a steady output. The lower the eccentricity, the closer the greatest and least amount of energy is. The reason why we warm when the eccentricity is low and cool when the eccentricity is high has to due with the nature of an elliptical orbit. As the orbit becomes more elliptical, the earth slows down as it travels farther away from the sun and speeds up as it gets closer. This means the time it spends at less than 1 astronomical unit (AU) is shorter and the time it spends grater than 1 AU is longer. As the eccentricity increases, so does this effect. Therefore, the annual heat from the sun decreases with eccentricity.

Did I explain that well enough why I believe eccentricity is more important than 65N insolation?

13. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Originally Posted by Bunbury
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
It takes a specific amount of energy to make molecules go though a state change. This is proven science.
I showed in the thread that was just locked.
Actually your calculation was off by a factor of more than four. The latent heat of fusion of ice is approx. 78 cal/g not 334 cal/g. Care to redo your math?
Ooops, you are right. Thanks for the correction.

I mixed up the numbers. 333.55 is for joules per gm. It should have been 79.72 cal/gm.

Where do you get 78?
From memory.

Anyway, it's a factor of 4.184.
Yes it is. It's a rather significant error. Do you want to correct anything you've written about the energy required to melt a certain quantity of ice?

14. Originally Posted by Bunbury
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Anyway, it's a factor of 4.184.
Yes it is. It's a rather significant error. Do you want to correct anything you've written about the energy required to melt a certain quantity of ice?
I think that's self explanatory. It changes the heat to less than a quarter of what I originally stated. I may get around it at some point, but not a priority right now. People who understand and follow understand. If they don't understand, what's the point?

Happy Solstice...

a few minutes ago...

15. I would have thought the point was obvious. You make a big issue of your ability to do the calculations necessary to prove a thousand climate scientists wrong so I decide to do a quick check on one of your claims and the very first item I looked at was grossly wrong. That’s it for me. I’m back to ignoring you.

16. Originally Posted by inow
Originally Posted by milum
Your faith in global warming analyzers is heart-warming. Did you not get the memo about all the memos that plotted to hide any scientific studies antithetical to the global warming shibboleth?
Ah... of course. How could I be so silly as to maintain my acceptance of scientific fact when such damning evidence as a few quote mined emails taken way out of context are available to me. Thank you for illuminating for me why hearsay and misrepresentation of reality is so much more important than evidence, milum. You're the best!
Now inow, I just play the cards that I'm dealt. I can't help it if science has gone awry.

The Telegraph reported[ yesterday 12-20-09:
__________________________________________________ ___________

Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and who is considered the top climate scientist in the world, has a wide portfolio of business interests that rely on AGW hysteria:

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.

What has almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations...

These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year".
__________________________________________________ __________

QUESTION: Do lightning rod salesmen spin yarns of blue skies?

17. Originally Posted by milum
...<idiotic ramblings and nonsequitur news story snipped>...
WTF does that have to do with how ice sheets melt?

18. Originally Posted by Bunbury
I would have thought the point was obvious. You make a big issue of your ability to do the calculations necessary to prove a thousand climate scientists wrong so I decide to do a quick check on one of your claims and the very first item I looked at was grossly wrong. That’s it for me. I’m back to ignoring you.
Sounds like it's just a convenient excuse to dismiss me since so you don't have to keep an open mind. If you see another mistake that I may not be aware of, by what intent would you not reveal it? I am offended for you to suggest I am to be ignored. I at least give this a good faith effort. If you dismiss me out of hand for being human, then it is your scientific integrity at stake. Not mine. People check other people's work for a reason. Flimsy excuses to ignore others is rather unethical in my view. If You could find a pattern of mistakes, that would be different.

That's one problem with people who claim to be interested in science, but then get stuck on an idea. They fail to listen to anyone they disagree with. In this case, I made a mistake that I readily admitted. I didn't jump to conclusions and say "You are wrong" like some do, but checked a source and found my self corrected. I never claimed to be perfect, in fact I asked for my calculations to be checked in my posting on the topic. I haven't dealt with scientific math like this for maybe 30 years. Sure, it's relatively simple, but I'm a bit rusty here. I was in a rush before posting it, so I got sloppy.

Haven't you ever made a mistake?

As for looking at the calculations again, I have started to. It appears I made another mistake. I'm going to check my work better this time. It may be far easier to melt the ice than I first thought.

You may think I have an agenda. I don't. I have a solid belief that appears to differs from yours. If you believe you are right and I am wrong, then show me how I am wrong in meaningful ways. Not like Inow does. Believe it or not, I have an open mind. I just haven't seen any solid quantifiable evidence. I need evidence I can relate to. Not the of the general types of reports out there, but by evidence that can be quantified. Everything I see from the alarmists can be traced to the idea of Correlation is Causation. I myself have been accused of Confirmation Bias. I disagree, it's just that on this topic, the evidence I need is not there, and other evidence is stronger, like solar changes and the emissivity of soot on ice.

I see solar changes, and other natural forces in play. Soot is the only anthropogenic agent that has me concerned. CO2 is already near opaque to to the spectra it absorbs. It cannot warm the earth much more than it already does. If I am wrong, please show me how it can from a spectra viewpoint.

19. iNow wrote: WTF does that have to do with how ice sheets melt?

In Alabama, inow, we respond to rude sarcasm with kindness. My post was a measured reply to your sarcasm below. Don't you remember posting this...?

"Ah... of course. How could I be so silly as to maintain my acceptance of scientific fact when such damning evidence as a few quote mined emails taken way out of context are available to me. Thank you for illuminating for me why hearsay and misrepresentation of reality is so much more important than evidence, milum. You're the best!"

20. OK, if my current calculations are correct, then it takes 0.00761% of the annual solar radiation (7.99E13 kwh or 2.88E20 joules) to melt enough ice to raise the sea level by 1 cm. That is at a 0 C starting temperature. For every 1 C below zero more to heat, it takes 1.25% more energy to melt the same mass of ice. If the average ice starts at -10 C, then it would take 0.00857% of the annual solar radiation. This is actually a rather easy thing to do.

If we assume that the sea level has risen by 20 cm over the last century then that is 2 mm per year. If we attribute all of this to warming if the ice rather than any to thermal expansion, this is 1/5th of that energy, or about 0.00153% of the radiation budget. In reality, much of the sea level rise in by thermal expansion, which isn't a settled number either. My assumption is that it is between 75% to 100% of the sea level rise, but I could be wrong.

To put the 7.99E13 kwh and 2.88E20 joules into perspective:

79,900,000,000,000 kwh

288,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules

Solar radiation is 174 petawatts, about 30% is reflected. I used 235 watts/meter from a greenhouse gas model multiplied by the area of the earth, or 120 petawatts x 24 hr x 365 days for 1.05 zetta-watts-hours (1.05E18 kwh) annually.

1.05E18 kwh = 1.05 Zwh = 1,050,000,000,000,000,000,000 watt-hours.

Did I make a mistake again?

Anyone?

21. Originally Posted by cobra
Did I make a mistake again?
You overlooked the major claimed cause of the speedup of ice loss from Greenland - the glacial feed of ice into the ocean, where thousands of years of sunlight warmth and salt water are available to melt it rapidly.

You overlooked the influence of transport of heat from anywhere to the polar ice, via winds and currents and so forth, in your implied assessment of the amount of the planet's yearly insolation available to melt ice in the higher latitudes.

And so forth. But then, you are not particularly expert in the field, and cannot be blamed for various oversimplifications and naive errors.

This kind of stuff, however, is inexcusable:
Originally Posted by cobra
My assumption is that it is between 75% to 100% of the sea level rise, but I could be wrong.
You have made several such "assumptions" in various threads, and you obviously haven't the hint of the expertise necessary to make them. And you should know that.

22. Originally Posted by iceaura
Originally Posted by cobra
Did I make a mistake again?
You overlooked the major claimed cause of the speedup of ice loss from Greenland - the glacial feed of ice into the ocean, where thousands of years of sunlight warmth and salt water are available to melt it rapidly.
I am only showing the energy required to melt the ice. It doesn't matter where that energy comes from. I put it in to perspective from the annual solar radiation.

It doesn't matter from what form the direct or latent energy comes from.
Originally Posted by iceaura
You overlooked the influence of transport of heat from anywhere to the polar ice, via winds and currents and so forth, in your implied assessment of the amount of the planet's yearly insolation available to melt ice in the higher latitudes.
I am only showing the energy required to melt the ice. It doesn't matter where that energy comes from. I put it in to perspective from the annual solar radiation.

It doesn't matter from what form the direct or latent energy comes from.
Originally Posted by iceaura
And so forth. But then, you are not particularly expert in the field, and cannot be blamed for various oversimplifications and naive errors.
Since when does showing the energy requirement require what you believe?
Originally Posted by iceaura
This kind of stuff, however, is inexcusable:
Originally Posted by cobra
My assumption is that it is between 75% to 100% of the sea level rise, but I could be wrong.
You have made several such "assumptions" in various threads, and you obviously haven't the hint of the expertise necessary to make them. And you should know that.
Then school me.

I have in a past thread shown the known average sea temperature change and how it related to a given thermal expansion. I forget the exact amount, but it was most of the 20 cm rise we have seen.

If I am wrong, then quantify it for me.

You say my points are inexcusable? How about people denying what I say, and not being able to scientifically dispute me. Links with other people's opinion that lack data and methodology are useless.

Again, show me the error of my way then.

I have ever now and then quantified my beliefs. Can you do the same? If not, why are you wasting our time?

23. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sounds like it's just a convenient excuse to dismiss me
I dismissed you before but tried to give you a second chance. You blew it.

since so you don't have to keep an open mind.
Since I don't have to waste my time on garbage.

If you see another mistake that I may not be aware of, by what intent would you not reveal it?

I am offended for you to suggest I am to be ignored. I at least give this a good faith effort. If you dismiss me out of hand for being human, then it is your scientific integrity at stake. Not mine. People check other people's work for a reason. Flimsy excuses to ignore others is rather unethical in my view. If You could find a pattern of mistakes, that would be different
I am an engineer. Part of my job involves checking the work of younger, less experienced engineers. These young engineers submit their work for checking with a desire to improve their understanding as part of a standard quality control procedure. They do not submit their calculations with an air of arrogance and excessive assertiveness, as you do. I am not interested in checking your work. You've already demonstrated confusion between Joules and calories which is absolutely fundamental. So my response to your whining is - check your own damn work.

Bye.

24. Originally Posted by Bunbury
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sounds like it's just a convenient excuse to dismiss me
I dismissed you before but tried to give you a second chance. You blew it.

<snip>
I get it. Any excuse not to debate a worthy adversary. Just afraid to lose, aren't you.

25. I'm always willing to debate a worthy adversary.

26. Originally Posted by iceaura
As the calculation mr cobra advanced presumed that all the ice expected to melt would be simply warming and liquifying under the current rays of the sun, it is of little relevance.

(Even that showed that a sea level rise of a full centimeter every three years, or a meter in 300 years, is available for the heat from a mere 1% of the solar radiation on the planet - delivered in any way, we note.)

Much of the land ice melt in Greenland, for example, seems to be via faster glacial delivery of land ice into the ocean, where there is many thousands of years worth of solar heat available to melt it very quickly.

That's apparently why the land ice melting on Greenland is proceeding somewhat faster than the alarmists predicted, and possibly accelerating.

Bu the larger point is a more sociological or "discussion" one: does anyone here think this detail of available solar energy was overlooked byt the global warming analyzers? That the bod yof professional modelers and researchers who have considered the matter and formed their estimates actually failed to consider how much solar energy on average was available to melt the ice they have predicted may melt? This assumption of asshat idiocy among the distant, TV reported scientific establishment, is not really reasonable IMHO.

27. http://www.ucsc.edu/news_events/text.asp?pid=3455
Researchers studying a period of high carbon dioxide levels and warm climate several million years ago have concluded that slow changes such as melting ice sheets amplified the initial warming caused by greenhouse gases.

The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found that a relatively small rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels was associated with substantial global warming about 4.5 million years ago during the early Pliocene.

Coauthor Christina Ravelo, professor of ocean sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, said the study indicates that the sensitivity of Earth's temperature to increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is greater than has been expected on the basis of climate models that only include rapid responses.

Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, leading to increased atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures.

<...>

"Since there is no indication that the future will behave differently than the past, we should expect a couple of degrees of continued warming even if we held carbon dioxide concentrations at the current level," said lead author Mark Pagani, an associate professor of geology and geophysics at Yale University.

28. Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Originally Posted by Bunbury
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Sounds like it's just a convenient excuse to dismiss me
I dismissed you before but tried to give you a second chance. You blew it.

<snip>
I get it. Any excuse not to debate a worthy adversary. Just afraid to lose, aren't you.
A-ha, Wild Cobra, you are being dismissed. See what happens when you chat with people who are entrenched in their beliefs. What happens is... you end up chatting with a tree stump. :-D

29. Morons.

30. sorry guys, if you can't play nicely then it's time to stop the conversation

and don't bother starting another climate change thread in this part of the forum for the next few weeks - i think it's time we take a breather from the unpleasantness that oozes out of them

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement