- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:28 am to UPT
quote:Neaux.
Scientists are liberal devils!
"Scientists" are lying liberal devils.
Scientists are the ones who will eventually call them out.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:44 am to wickowick
Melting glaciers is where tbe drop in salinity comes from, thereby giving us freshening waters in a warming trend.
Remember that glaciers play this ice accumulation and shrinkage game every year, and it's the long term trend in this plus and minus tbat is important.
Remember that glaciers play this ice accumulation and shrinkage game every year, and it's the long term trend in this plus and minus tbat is important.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:01 am to Pectus
quote:Melting glaciers certainly could cause a drop in salinity. That impact would of course be EASILY calculable.
Melting glaciers is where tbe drop in salinity comes from
Couple of questions.
(1) Is the decline of the WAIS (Western Antarctic Ice Sheet) actually attributed to "melting"?
(2) Are you familiar with the EAIS?
(3) Are you familiar with status of EAIS ice content and its comparative importance to the WAIS?
(4) Can you cite rationale for salinity changes based on EAIS vs WAIS changes?
(5) In fact can you cite any data at all, scientifically explicative of actual measured salinity decline as causative of actual measured Antarctic sea ice growth?
Before you engage an argument (or buy into it) it is important to know the facts.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 7:06 am
Posted on 5/30/14 at 7:06 am to Tigah in the ATL
quote:
why is it interesting?
shouldn't you not trust this leftist political scam either?
FIFY!
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:04 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
NC_Tigah
I take it you've never seen my posts here?
I am all for getting the right science out there. My reply in this therad was trying to explain a model to one poster who had issues with why ice would form in warming environments when they assumed water would be more saline.
It's actually less saline in warm periods (I use period loosely here, I mean on the order of 10,000 years) because there is more moisture. Salt water is more saline in cold periods because 1) more fresh water is trapped in ice, and 2) increased aridity, meaning increased evaporation of those constituents that leave the seawater and cause the remaining minerals to add to the salinity.
I am all for good science, and that's a problem I have with climate alarmists and some data and interpretations put out by science today.
I think your list here of evidence you need to show aspects of what the AGC proponents are raving about is a good one. One where if pursued would bring about good discussion. I will be happy to try my best to look for these answers even though we seem to be on the same side of the aisle. Do you already happen to have these answers?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:25 am to Pectus
For example:
This article here
Is interesting, and germane to our discussion. But I got a totally different interpretation out of it than could these scientists.
1) EAIS and WAIS are continental glaciers meaning that they don't move much because there is no change in land slope beneath them. At the distal edges of these glaciers, however, the land drops into the sea, and sometimes at high angles. Here there are valley glaciers, and that is what is pictured in the article:
Land with topography allows valley glaciers to flow due to 1) growth and 2) basal slip. Basal slip is when there is a lubricated layer of water or slush between the land surface and the bottom side of the glacier. Growth of ice on top of the glacier is controlled by the overall glacial budget each year over many (thousands of years) basically accumulation (added snow and eventual ice in cool times) versus wastage (removal of ice via melt water in warm times).
All this to say, looking at valley glaciers on the edge of the ice sheet is not the best way to study the continental glacier that is WAIS or EAIS. In fact, I think the scale is too big to even look at a continental glacier and understand what is happening, so scientists turn to things that would track temp globally, which is probably why everyone is stuck on what greenhouse gases could do versus evidence of what they are doing, because the first thing that needs to happen for any type of big change to happen is ice sheets need to melt.
It's hard because continental ice sheets spread due to the slow plastic flow of ice. Ice is like a slow moving fluid, so at a certain height a pile of ice will start to flow down to its edges, kind of like how you can't make a sandcastle of dry sand high without increasing its base. So how do we track this over time and how do we know what's going on? Being humans and being a really difficult place to travel to and study.
All this to say...yes...I know about glaciers.
Whose to say that this increase of flow is due to the overall growing of the ice sheets busting out the seams? The seams being the edges of Antartica and their valley glaciers, the ones that are supposed to move?
This article here
Is interesting, and germane to our discussion. But I got a totally different interpretation out of it than could these scientists.
1) EAIS and WAIS are continental glaciers meaning that they don't move much because there is no change in land slope beneath them. At the distal edges of these glaciers, however, the land drops into the sea, and sometimes at high angles. Here there are valley glaciers, and that is what is pictured in the article:
Land with topography allows valley glaciers to flow due to 1) growth and 2) basal slip. Basal slip is when there is a lubricated layer of water or slush between the land surface and the bottom side of the glacier. Growth of ice on top of the glacier is controlled by the overall glacial budget each year over many (thousands of years) basically accumulation (added snow and eventual ice in cool times) versus wastage (removal of ice via melt water in warm times).
All this to say, looking at valley glaciers on the edge of the ice sheet is not the best way to study the continental glacier that is WAIS or EAIS. In fact, I think the scale is too big to even look at a continental glacier and understand what is happening, so scientists turn to things that would track temp globally, which is probably why everyone is stuck on what greenhouse gases could do versus evidence of what they are doing, because the first thing that needs to happen for any type of big change to happen is ice sheets need to melt.
It's hard because continental ice sheets spread due to the slow plastic flow of ice. Ice is like a slow moving fluid, so at a certain height a pile of ice will start to flow down to its edges, kind of like how you can't make a sandcastle of dry sand high without increasing its base. So how do we track this over time and how do we know what's going on? Being humans and being a really difficult place to travel to and study.
All this to say...yes...I know about glaciers.
Whose to say that this increase of flow is due to the overall growing of the ice sheets busting out the seams? The seams being the edges of Antartica and their valley glaciers, the ones that are supposed to move?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:30 am to Pectus
quote:
Do you already happen to have these answers?
quote:I take it you have seen my posts here?
I take it you've never seen my posts here?
So yes, I have those answers.
Yes, those answers are substantially counterfactual to Warmist theses regarding Antarctic ice.
To paraphrase Gowdy,
I am not surprised Al Gore promotes AGW theory. He saw a money-making opportunity and took it. I'm not surprised agenda driven politicians would try to manufacture a crisis to attain their goals. It's what they do. I'm not even surprised that scientists driven by huge funding asymmetry would skew or even corrupt their results. I'm just surprised at how many people bought it.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 8:52 am to NC_Tigah
Well love to discuss some of those with you. Nothing like a robust model.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:10 am to UPT
quote:
Scientists are liberal devils!
Except the one who wrote this article..
So true around here.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:17 am to weedGOKU666
quote:Serious question. Is there a finite amount of salt in the ocean? How does more salt get into the oceans? With rivers and rainfall pouring into the oceans wouldn't the salt ratio naturally decrease over time?
If saline levels are reduced
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:25 am to dante
quote:Water gets to the rivers from the ocean.
Serious question. Is there a finite amount of salt in the ocean? How does more salt get into the oceans? With rivers and rainfall pouring into the oceans wouldn't the salt ratio naturally decrease over time?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:26 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Water gets to the rivers from the ocean.
But the salt doesn't go with it.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:32 am to NC_Tigah
quote:Huh? I always thought the Mississippi River flowed into the Gulf and not the other way around.
Water gets to the rivers from the ocean
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:37 am to dante
quote:Ocean Evaporation => Clouds => Rain => Rivers
I always thought the Mississippi River flowed into the Gulf and not the other way around.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:50 am to NC_Tigah
quote:So, there is a finite amount of salt in the ocean. If the amount of evaporation is greater than what is replaced from the river flow and rain fall then the salt ratio would rise?
Ocean Evaporation => Clouds => Rain => Rivers
Posted on 5/30/14 at 9:56 am to dante
quote:Yes.
If the amount of evaporation is greater than what is replaced from the river flow and rain fall then the salt ratio would rise?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 11:16 am to Pectus
quote:
Pectus
Are there any graphs that show average salinity over the past hundred years or so? I've found a dissertation about salinity being used to determine Earth's age (it says that while there may be local salinity changes from ocean to ocean, the average hasn't changed for at least 50 years), but nothing that shows a trend for current times.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 5:05 pm to Bard
quote:
Are there any graphs that show average salinity over the past hundred years or so? I've found a dissertation about salinity being used to determine Earth's age (it says that while there may be local salinity changes from ocean to ocean, the average hasn't changed for at least 50 years), but nothing that shows a trend for current times.
It's fairly stable over time.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 6:48 pm to dante
quote:the ocean is salty because of salt washed into it from rain.
Is there a finite amount of salt in the ocean?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News