So, the ice is melting...

or is it?

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php

On Dec 10, 7:23*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
or is it?

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php

Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
km3 of slow-ice to go.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message ...

Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
km3 of slow-ice to go.

Where?

By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?

On Dec 10, 8:11*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in ...
Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
km3 of slow-ice to go.

Where?

By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?

I seem to recall reading and perhaps having posted a link to research
of the current slow-ice loss at 917e6 tonnes tonnes per day, which is
1 km3/day.

My swag of 2.2 km3/day = 803 km3/year as the average for this century
= 0.25 meter rise. (not the near 2 meter rise as touted by some)

It's actually more complex, but good enough for my rough ballpark,
because I also include displacement via erosion and thermal expansion
factors.

~ BG

On Dec 10, 8:11*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in ...
Only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we got at least 30e6
km3 of slow-ice to go.

Where?

By what means do you come up with a cubic kilometer per day?

I seem to recall reading and perhaps having posted a link to research
of the current slow-ice loss at 917e6 tonnes per day, which is 1 km3/
day.

My swag of 2.2 km3/day = 803 km3/year as the average for this century
= 0.25 meter rise. (not the near 2 meter rise as touted by some AGW
extremist)

It's actually more complex, but good enough for my rough ballpark,
because I also include displacement via erosion and thermal expansion
factors.
~ BG

On Dec 10, 7:23*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
or is it?

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V9/N45/C2.php

Currently we’re only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we
got at least 30e6 km3 of slow-ice to go.

Hypertextbook; remaining slow-ice as of 2003: 33e6 km3
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...erenblit.shtml

Possibly it's 36e6 km3 if every cubic meter of slow-ice is accounted
for.

~ BG

On Dec 11, 6:24*am, BradGuth wrote:

Currently we’re only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we
got at least 30e6 km3 of slow-ice to go.

Hypertextbook; remaining slow-ice as of 2003: *33e6 km3
*http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...erenblit.shtml

Possibly it's 36e6 km3 if every cubic meter of slow-ice is accounted
for.

*~ BG

Ice, ice everywhere and not a drop to drink.

On Dec 11, 4:14*am, "Chris.B" wrote:
On Dec 11, 6:24*am, BradGuth wrote:



Currently we’re only thawing at a modest km3/day, and supposedly we
got at least 30e6 km3 of slow-ice to go.

Hypertextbook; remaining slow-ice as of 2003: *33e6 km3
*http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2000/...erenblit.shtml

Possibly it's 36e6 km3 if every cubic meter of slow-ice is accounted
for.

*~ BG

Ice, ice everywhere and not a drop to drink.

Actually fresh water as easily derived from those Greenland and
Antarctic icebergs isn't all that insignificant. Perhaps eventually
10% of that slow-ice could be recovered as fresh water, and utilized
where it's otherwise badly in short supply.

Currently we’re only thawing out at a modest km3/day, and supposedly
we got at least 33e6 km3 of glacial slow-ice to go. By some other
accepted measurement we've got 36e6 km3.

On Dec 12, 9:51 am, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
How come this chunk of ice has been hanging around for ten years?

http://www.sphere.com/2009/12/09/hug...oward-australi...

Firstly, in addition to those obvious glacial melts and numerous other
run-offs between the relatively warm crust and all of that glacial
slow-ice, it’s the increased cubic volumes of such seasonal icebergs
that’s also on the increase.

Icebergs tend to last because deep inside that berg it's still -16C
(if not –20C), and ice is actually a darn good thermal insulator if
it's thick enough, as well as the local ocean temperature surrounding
that ice is not likely much above 5C which doesn't give a whole lot of
thermal differential, especially as the coldest ocean thermal layer of
perhaps 1C is what remains within the first 10 cm of that ice.

My math could be somewhat off, although it supposedly takes 131 TW.h
in order to thaw a billion tonne volume of -16 C ice if that process
includes bringing it up to +17 C. Obviously the outer surface
temperature of that ice is merely frosty and near 0 C, whereas it
takes 93e12 W.h / 1e12 kg or 93 W.h/kg just to thaw that surface ice
into 0.6C fluid water. So, what's the local area sea temperature and
the surrounding air temp?

In the mean time, I'll recheck my swag as to ice thawing or water
warming energy requirements.

1 BTU = 1 degree F per pound (same as 1.055e3 J, or 0.293 W.h)

There's 2.2046e12 pounds per billion tonnes of ice, and therefore it’s
taking 2.2046e12 BTUs per degree(F)

Per metric tonne = 2.2046e12 BTUs = 646.1e6 KW.h

-16C to +17C represents a thermal difference of 66F

2.2046e12 x 66 = 145.5 e12 BTU = 42.642e9 KW.h or 42.642 TW.h

“In North America, a standard ton of refrigeration is 12,000 BTU/h
(3517 W). This is approximately the power required to melt one short
ton (2000 lb) of ice at 0 °C (32 °F) in 24 hours, thus representing
the delivery of 1 ton of ice per day.” (same as 3876.79 W.h x 24 =
93.043 KW.h per metric tonne)

An average thaw rate for this century of perhaps 2.2 km3/day or 2e9
tonnes/day x 93.043 KW.h = 186 TW.h/day (excluding those pesky factors
of ice insulating itself and the 33°C or 66° F thermal differential of
an iceberg core temperature of –16C becoming thermally equalized at
the average ocean temperature of +17C)

Problem is, it isn’t so simple because ice insulates ice. In fact 10+
meters of ice is providing terrific insulation, and 100+ meters of ice
is obviously a whole lot better reason as to why large icebergs tend
to last so long. Secondly, it seems we still have no objective
science pertaining to raw ice in the vacuum of space as fully solar
illuminated, such as deployed within the Apollo passive environment of
our Earth-moon L1(Selene L1) is still a total mystery. So, other than
going by theory, it seems we can’t even reasonably extrapolate with
certainty as to what the raw solar influx, plus whatever vacuum or
pressure has to do with the melting of any large block or significant
volume of ice. In other words, there’s simply no objective science as
to how long a given km3 of ice will last, especially if the vast bulk
of its interior is –20C (-25C not uncommon).

For something as critically important and life essential as water and
ice, it seems we’re still kind of flying blind, as well as being
global warmed to death, traumatized by greater storm intensities and
getting Noah flooded out at the same time, not to mention the whole
volume of Earth continually modulated by the 2e20 N/s of tidal force
from holding onto our moon(Selene). Perhaps our being impacted by an
extremely large asteroid would be a change for the better, because our
long-term terrestrial environment situation isn’t exactly looking
good.

~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”

Hardly, when their research isn't about real world numbers or conditions. You've
been shown evidence to the contrary and don't give a ****. So, you are the perfect
ostrich who is more interested in propping up a falsehood than facing the fact that
you are wrong and hence proving the fact that you mentally disturbed.

"BradGuth" wrote in message ...

It's actually the research and math of others that know more than all
of us Usenet/newsgroup contributors combined.

On Dec 13, 5:06*pm, "Nightcrawler" wrote:
Hardly, when their research isn't about real world numbers or conditions. *You've
been shown evidence to the contrary and don't give a ****. *So, you are the perfect
ostrich who is more interested in propping up a falsehood than facing the fact that
you are wrong and hence proving the fact that you mentally disturbed.

"BradGuth" wrote in ...

It's actually the research and math of others that know more than all
of us Usenet/newsgroup contributors combined.

Your obfuscation/exclusions and perpetual denial is noted.

~ BG