Measuring Arctic Ice

Some experts say that the summer arctic ice will be gone in 30 years.

https://gizmodo.com/nasas-incredible-expedition-to-explore-the-arctic-ice-s-1718456021

And other experts say that we will be in another mini ice-age...
I say I will be drinking scotch that has not been grown yet!

aerostadt said:

Some experts say that the summer arctic ice will be gone in 30 years.

https://gizmodo.com/nasas-incredible-expedition-to-explore-the-arctic-ice-s-1718456021

Click to expand...

Interesting article. Thanks for posting!

One complaint I have is that the article points out the difference between sea ice and the Greenland ice sheet --- two completely different things --- but then later it switches between the two without clarifying what it is talking about. Other than that, it's great.

The arctic sea ice may very well disappear completely in summer within a very short timeframe. That would have pretty severe consequences for the arctic ecosystems, and it would also provide a positive feedback for additional warming as described in the article.

On the other hand, the Greenland ice sheet is also melting but will take much much longer than 30 years to completely melt. Because it is on land, not floating on the sea, melting of the ice sheet has different consequences than melting of the sea ice. Ice sheet melting results in sea level rise, while sea ice melting does not.

On on a related note, there is a "bombshell" report coming out this week related to the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet, their rate of melting, some previously not understood feedback mechanisms that may dramatically increase the rate of melting, and the consequences for sea level rise. Advance reports have been provided to the press, so some news stories have already come out, but the full paper is to be published this week. I want to see the full paper and some reactions to it before posting details.

Shade said:

And other experts say that we will be in another mini ice-age...
I say I will be drinking scotch that has not been grown yet!

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone seriously believes we are entering an ice age. But enjoy the Scotch anyway.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruced...ning-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/noaa-caught-fudging-global-warming-data-again

https://twitchy.com/2015/07/22/arct...g-put-on-hold-because-of-too-much-ice-photos/

There is a lot of money and taxes to be made with Global Warming.

Just sayin'

ThirstyBarbarian said:

On on a related note, there is a "bombshell" report coming out this week related to the Greenland ice sheet and West Antarctic ice sheet, their rate of melting, some previously not understood feedback mechanisms that may dramatically increase the rate of melting, and the consequences for sea level rise. Advance reports have been provided to the press, so some news stories have already come out, but the full paper is to be published this week. I want to see the full paper and some reactions to it before posting details.

Click to expand...

Yes, that Bombshell report is from Bomb throwing James Hansen who has had the worst climate model errors of the bunch. His "Bombshell" report is will be 'released" before it has been peer reviewed. Hansen is the Donald Trump of climate science (whatever that is).

jderimig said:

Yes, that Bombshell report is from Bomb throwing James Hansen who has had the worst climate model errors of the bunch. His "Bombshell" report is will be 'released" before it has been peer reviewed. Hansen is the Donald Trump of climate science (whatever that is).

Click to expand...

Don't do that to me when I am drinking coffee, now where is my darn windex...

Shade said:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/bruced...ning-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/

https://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/noaa-caught-fudging-global-warming-data-again

https://twitchy.com/2015/07/22/arct...g-put-on-hold-because-of-too-much-ice-photos/

There is a lot of money and taxes to be made with Global Warming.

Just sayin'

Click to expand...

I think if scientists could be bought off with money, the fossil fuel industry would have more success in buying them than the paltry grant money out there.

Just sayin'.

jderimig said:

Yes, that Bombshell report is from Bomb throwing James Hansen who has had the worst climate model errors of the bunch. His "Bombshell" report is will be 'released" before it has been peer reviewed. Hansen is the Donald Trump of climate science (whatever that is).

Click to expand...

The interesting thing is that the report will basically be peer-reviewed publicly and openly rather than in a closed process as usual. If you want, you can follow the entire process online. The report is not published yet, so I'm not going to comment on it. Think what you will of Hansen, but science is evaluated scientifically, not based on ad-hominem insults. Even a Jackass like Trump can be right about certain things.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I think if scientists could be bought off with money, the fossil fuel industry would have more success in buying them than the paltry grant money out there.

Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Coal and Petroleum industries don't need to buy off anyone, the simple fact is that our modern
society and economy have a high demand for energy. That energy need is going to be supplied
in great part by fossil fuels. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc. are great for offsetting some
of the demand but will never be able to supply all of it. Nuclear is a valid offset, one I personally
support, I will reference the French model as a good option. But FF will be continued to be used
for the foreseeable future.

When carbon based fuels are used the enthalpy from the reaction are directly tied to the CO2
produced. Coal being the highest density of carbon is the most efficiency, wood and alcohol
being the least with methane, ethane and propane, close behind. That is basic chemistry.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

The interesting thing is that the report will basically be peer-reviewed publicly and openly rather than in a closed process as usual. If you want, you can follow the entire process online. The report is not published yet, so I'm not going to comment on it. Think what you will of Hansen, but science is evaluated scientifically, not based on ad-hominem insults. Even a Jackass like Trump can be right about certain things.

Click to expand...

Please post a link when it is available.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

Even a Jackass like Trump can be right about certain things.

Click to expand...

You are correct, I was very unfair to Trump by comparing him to Hansen. Trump has a much higher accuracy rate than Hansen.

So now we have to change the peer-review process because Hansen wants attention? Being historically horrendously wrong since 1988 isn't enough notoriety?

Shade said:

Coal and Petroleum industries don't need to buy off anyone, the simple fact is that our modern
society and economy have a high demand for energy. That energy need is going to be supplied
in great part by fossil fuels. Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc. are great for offsetting some
of the demand but will never be able to supply all of it. Nuclear is a valid offset, one I personally
support, I will reference the French model as a good option. But FF will be continued to be used
for the foreseeable future.

When carbon based fuels are used the enthalpy from the reaction are directly tied to the CO2
produced. Coal being the highest density of carbon is the most efficiency, wood and alcohol
being the least with methane, ethane and propane, close behind. That is basic chemistry.


Please post a link when it is available.

Click to expand...

I'll post the link when it is published.

As for the energy debate, it's politics and policy, and I don't get into that on this forum. I'll talk about climate science, facts, theories, etc. But I can't get into what our government policy should be --- taxes, economics, energy policy, etc. In other words, I'll discuss what is happening, but not what should or should not be done about it. I've had bad experiences with political discussion, and I'm not doing it again. Thanks.

jderimig said:

You are correct, I was very unfair to Trump by comparing him to Hansen. Trump has a much higher accuracy rate than Hansen.

So now we have to change the peer-review process because Hansen wants attention? Being historically horrendously wrong since 1988 isn't enough notoriety?

Click to expand...

It sounds like your trying to get me to defend Hansen. I don't care what you think of him.

Regarding the report, I'm going to reserve judgment until I actually see it. It would be GREAT to be able to form an opinion about things I know nothing about. What a timesaver! Maybe you can teach me how you do it. That would really cut down on the time I spend learning things.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

I'll post the link when it is published.

Click to expand...

Thank you.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

As for the energy debate, it's politics and policy, and I don't get into that on this forum.

Click to expand...

I agree, but with the current state of affairs, the two, the science and the policy, are inexorably intertwined.

ThirstyBarbarian said:

It sounds like your trying to get me to defend Hansen. I don't care what you think of him.

Click to expand...

That's a load off my mind.

"Public" peer review, what a load of crap. Smacks of desperation.

jderimig said:

"Public" peer review, what a load of crap.

Click to expand...

Sounds like marketing to me.

Shade said:

Please post a link when it is available.

Click to expand...

It is now available, and I have started a new thread: https://www.rocketryforum.com/showt...t-global-warming-study!&p=1480846#post1480846