RE: 0 + 0

RE: 0 + 0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

EdBowie -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/7/2013 9:01:35 PM)
With a powerful recent eruption like Krakatoa, the hyperbole on both sides ( more than all human pollution ever' vs. 'huh-nuh, never happened', the primary result is further depletion of the Earth's valuable tin foil resources.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 7:09:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie With a powerful recent eruption like Krakatoa, the hyperbole on both sides ( more than all human pollution ever' vs. 'huh-nuh, never happened', the primary result is further depletion of the Earth's valuable tin foil resources. Krakatoa put a lot of gas and ash into the air, 21km^3 is the estimate I found, but more than all human activity ever? Nearly 5 billion tons of coal is mined and burned each year. at roughly 800kg//m^3 that's 6.25 billion m^3 burned per year or 6.25 km^3 per year. Obviously all the ash doesn't get into the air any more but it does serve to put the issue into scale.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 12:49:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Ahhh how lovely. The tide turns against the junk science that was global warming. Of course, the fact that people are experiencing a cold winter helps. The fact that anarctic ice is at the highest level in 35 years (and possbly much much longer) helps to. But I like this quote for the week of 10/17. Zero papers published in support of global warming. Zero people showed up in California in a rally organized by dimocrats in support of ending climate change. And it looks quite plausible that spending on climate science will be slashed in the US. A good week indeed. You do realize that warming in Antarctica means MORE snow and therefore ice shelves expand do you not? By the way, you mention cold weather? It was well over 70 last week in NE TN. I had to turn on the AC in the car on the way home from work. I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 12:53:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: EdBowie FR All the histrionics about whether 'global warming' or 'global cooling' is winning, distracts from the central question. Is there a causal connection between the aggregate difference that humans make in the environment... (deforestation, pollution, consumption et al.) and conditions deleterious to normal life in the long run... say the next dozen generations? If so, can the causal link sustain a simple reversal? If not, can other steps be taken? . Human caused global warming or not, it doesn't matter. We need to get away from petroleum based energy for the simple reason that it will cut the balls off those people in the middle east who have been nonconsensually buttfucking us over an oil barrel for 3+ generations (with the gleeful assistance of American Corporatist whores) and they can go back to enthusiastically killing each other. It simply won't Hill. I've demonstrated this time and time again. Look up spains experience with green energy, or the EU's. The net effect was shifting jobs to china. China then buys the oil. But the great thing about the us boom in fracking is that it is lowering our cost of energy, and it is one of the contributing causes to why some manufacturing is coming back to the US. With cheap(er) energy, we manufacture more of our own polyethylene, polypropylene etc.

Hillwilliam -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 1:02:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 4:20:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation. In general, I agree with most of that. A few comments: a)Ice cores from antartic show wide variation in the rates of ice formation. b)while a agree in principle, again, I was asking you to provide peer reviewed science that says that the rate of ice formation has changed because of temperature. Again the journals I have seen have said it is because more water vapor is being delivered

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 8:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation. In general, I agree with most of that. A few comments: a)Ice cores from antartic show wide variation in the rates of ice formation. b)while a agree in principle, again, I was asking you to provide peer reviewed science that says that the rate of ice formation has changed because of temperature. Again the journals I have seen have said it is because more water vapor is being delivered And why would more water vapor be delivered?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/8/2013 11:16:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation. In general, I agree with most of that. A few comments: a)Ice cores from antartic show wide variation in the rates of ice formation. b)while a agree in principle, again, I was asking you to provide peer reviewed science that says that the rate of ice formation has changed because of temperature. Again the journals I have seen have said it is because more water vapor is being delivered And why would more water vapor be delivered? One theorized it was an end to the current lows over the south pacific. It could be volcanos vaporizing WAIS ice. It could be increasing cloud cover caused by ionizing radiation. We don't really know. But one thing it isn't is global warming causing rising seas and less ice. In fact, I believe the seas for 2010 (last year available from the source I read) showed a decrease. Isn't that right Ken?

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/9/2013 2:22:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation. In general, I agree with most of that. A few comments: a)Ice cores from antartic show wide variation in the rates of ice formation. b)while a agree in principle, again, I was asking you to provide peer reviewed science that says that the rate of ice formation has changed because of temperature. Again the journals I have seen have said it is because more water vapor is being delivered And why would more water vapor be delivered? One theorized it was an end to the current lows over the south pacific. It could be volcanos vaporizing WAIS ice. It could be increasing cloud cover caused by ionizing radiation. We don't really know. But one thing it isn't is global warming causing rising seas and less ice. In fact, I believe the seas for 2010 (last year available from the source I read) showed a decrease. Isn't that right Ken? Wrong as always. You obsess over annual variations and ignore the trend lines. Sea levels are up several cm this century and there is no sign that is ending, especially with the melting of all terrestrial ice including Antarctica. The reason there can be more water vapor over Antarctica to allow for more snow to fall is that the air over Antarctica is warmer. Like Hillwilliam told you the air over Antarctica was usually so cold it could contain almost no water vapor, the fact that air can carry more water vapor at higher temps is why humidity is measured in relative terms, i.e. relative humidity. Now despite your lies the Antarctic ice is thinning and a slight increase in snowfall over the continent is not changing that.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/9/2013 6:54:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I'm afraid you're going to have to provide documentation for that. Because I've read three papers on it this week and the claim is simply that more water vapor is being delivered. More water vapor delivered would have the effect of raising temperatures slightly, becuase changing water from vapor to ice takes a great deal of energy. Antarctica is the driest continent on the planet. Butbutbutbutbut there's an ice cap miles thick you say. Yes, there is but it has taken millions of years to form with the scant precipitation. Why is it scant? Simple. It's too cold to snow. The air over the continent is so cold that even in midsummer, it contains very scant water vapor. No water vapor = no precipitation. If the air warms, it can now hold sufficient water vapor to allow precipitation. In general, I agree with most of that. A few comments: a)Ice cores from antartic show wide variation in the rates of ice formation. b)while a agree in principle, again, I was asking you to provide peer reviewed science that says that the rate of ice formation has changed because of temperature. Again the journals I have seen have said it is because more water vapor is being delivered And why would more water vapor be delivered? One theorized it was an end to the current lows over the south pacific. It could be volcanos vaporizing WAIS ice. It could be increasing cloud cover caused by ionizing radiation. We don't really know. But one thing it isn't is global warming causing rising seas and less ice. In fact, I believe the seas for 2010 (last year available from the source I read) showed a decrease. Isn't that right Ken? Wrong as always. You obsess over annual variations and ignore the trend lines. Sea levels are up several cm this century and there is no sign that is ending, especially with the melting of all terrestrial ice including Antarctica. The reason there can be more water vapor over Antarctica to allow for more snow to fall is that the air over Antarctica is warmer. Like Hillwilliam told you the air over Antarctica was usually so cold it could contain almost no water vapor, the fact that air can carry more water vapor at higher temps is why humidity is measured in relative terms, i.e. relative humidity. Now despite your lies the Antarctic ice is thinning and a slight increase in snowfall over the continent is not changing that. Such a delusional world view.. let me recap you the headlines from a few days ago - Antartic ice at 35 year high. And still no quotes from you to dispute that, isn't that right. Or are you going to try to use data from 2008 again? I will note that 35 years takes you all the way back before the global warming scare - back to the time that Time and Newsweek magazines were proclaiming we might be in for a global freeze. Yep. Thats how much ice we have in the antarctic. I'm afraid my friend that you are the one that are ignoring trend lines. Like the fact if you study sea rate increase and decrease over the last 1000 years - the rates we are experiencing are consistent. Ie., CO2 isn't statistically making a damn bit of difference. Sea level rise in the 1920-1930's occured faster than currently. (I'm doing that from memory, so you will probably go look it up to prove I"m wrong then I'll have to dig out the exact years to prove I'm right). But since you're the one that says I'm ignoring trendlines - why don't you post trendlines for the last 1000 years and prove I'm wrong...

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/9/2013 8:55:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Such a delusional world view.. let me recap you the headlines from a few days ago - Antartic ice at 35 year high. And still no quotes from you to dispute that, isn't that right. Or are you going to try to use data from 2008 again? I will note that 35 years takes you all the way back before the global warming scare - back to the time that Time and Newsweek magazines were proclaiming we might be in for a global freeze. Yep. Thats how much ice we have in the antarctic. You misunderstand or misrepresent the data as always. The Antarctic sea ice is covering a larger area. That means it is moving off the land faster as it thins. Exactly as expected. You really have no understanding of the science and until you try and actually understand what you read you'll continue looking foolish. BTW you ran away from admitting that the only way more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is that the air is warmer. Do you concede that fact?

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/10/2013 10:50:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Such a delusional world view.. let me recap you the headlines from a few days ago - Antartic ice at 35 year high. And still no quotes from you to dispute that, isn't that right. Or are you going to try to use data from 2008 again? I will note that 35 years takes you all the way back before the global warming scare - back to the time that Time and Newsweek magazines were proclaiming we might be in for a global freeze. Yep. Thats how much ice we have in the antarctic. You misunderstand or misrepresent the data as always. The Antarctic sea ice is covering a larger area. That means it is moving off the land faster as it thins. Exactly as expected. You really have no understanding of the science and until you try and actually understand what you read you'll continue looking foolish. BTW you ran away from admitting that the only way more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is that the air is warmer. Do you concede that fact? Yeah - so much warmer that the new record for coldest temperature, ever was set in 2010. And almost set again this year 2013. Your facts are wrong. Your science is junk. http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/12/10/new_temperature_world_record_-1358_108401.html So no I don't concede it. And again: the ice is thicker . Let me spell it out for you THICKER. Read the article: Thicker. Read it backwards: rekcihT Thicker. the opposite of thinner. Its only in the WAIS where the ice is thinner - due to newly found volcanos underneath erupting.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/11/2013 2:55:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Such a delusional world view.. let me recap you the headlines from a few days ago - Antartic ice at 35 year high. And still no quotes from you to dispute that, isn't that right. Or are you going to try to use data from 2008 again? I will note that 35 years takes you all the way back before the global warming scare - back to the time that Time and Newsweek magazines were proclaiming we might be in for a global freeze. Yep. Thats how much ice we have in the antarctic. You misunderstand or misrepresent the data as always. The Antarctic sea ice is covering a larger area. That means it is moving off the land faster as it thins. Exactly as expected. You really have no understanding of the science and until you try and actually understand what you read you'll continue looking foolish. BTW you ran away from admitting that the only way more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is that the air is warmer. Do you concede that fact? Yeah - so much warmer that the new record for coldest temperature, ever was set in 2010. And almost set again this year 2013. Your facts are wrong. Your science is junk. http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/12/10/new_temperature_world_record_-1358_108401.html So no I don't concede it. And again: the ice is thicker . Let me spell it out for you THICKER. Read the article: Thicker. Read it backwards: rekcihT Thicker. the opposite of thinner. Its only in the WAIS where the ice is thinner - due to newly found volcanos underneath erupting. You have posted no links in this thread saying the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker. I did some searching and there are no journal articles making that claim. You are misrepresenting the larger extent of the Antarctic sea ice. As to those record temps, did you bother finding out that satellite coverage of the Antarctic is measuring surface temps is relatively new? Those temps may be occurring quite frequently.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/11/2013 11:20:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux Such a delusional world view.. let me recap you the headlines from a few days ago - Antartic ice at 35 year high. And still no quotes from you to dispute that, isn't that right. Or are you going to try to use data from 2008 again? I will note that 35 years takes you all the way back before the global warming scare - back to the time that Time and Newsweek magazines were proclaiming we might be in for a global freeze. Yep. Thats how much ice we have in the antarctic. You misunderstand or misrepresent the data as always. The Antarctic sea ice is covering a larger area. That means it is moving off the land faster as it thins. Exactly as expected. You really have no understanding of the science and until you try and actually understand what you read you'll continue looking foolish. BTW you ran away from admitting that the only way more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is that the air is warmer. Do you concede that fact? Yeah - so much warmer that the new record for coldest temperature, ever was set in 2010. And almost set again this year 2013. Your facts are wrong. Your science is junk. http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2013/12/10/new_temperature_world_record_-1358_108401.html So no I don't concede it. And again: the ice is thicker . Let me spell it out for you THICKER. Read the article: Thicker. Read it backwards: rekcihT Thicker. the opposite of thinner. Its only in the WAIS where the ice is thinner - due to newly found volcanos underneath erupting. You have posted no links in this thread saying the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker. I did some searching and there are no journal articles making that claim. You are misrepresenting the larger extent of the Antarctic sea ice. As to those record temps, did you bother finding out that satellite coverage of the Antarctic is measuring surface temps is relatively new? Those temps may be occurring quite frequently. Trying to move the goal posts again are we? You said the weather is warmer - I said it is colder - and proved it with links. You said the ice is thinner. I quoted 2 science articles that say - no it is thicker. You said we have less ice - I said - no we are at a 35 year high on ice - and gave links. Alarmists said that the NW passage would year round navigable by 2013. Instead ice has rebounded to the average for the previous ten years and the passage is blocked. Alarmists said that polar bears are at risk of going extinct. Polar bear populations are stable. Alarmists said the glaciers in the himalayans would melt by 2020 due to global warming. The glaciers are fine. Alarmist all Gore said we would see a 5.4 temperature increase by 2020 - catastrophic increase. We have't and we wont. Alarmists said temperature would continue to increase as we dump ever increasing amounts of Co2 into the atmosphere. Temperatures have been stable for 16+ years. So, so far - you have provided no links that back up your assertions from this year or last year Whereas I have provided several. All the actual science is on the side of the people that are saying AGCC is NOT HAPPENING. On the alarmist side all you have is fraud, deception, data manipulation, and requests for more spending. Billions wasted on an absolute fraud.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/11/2013 2:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have posted no links in this thread saying the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker. I did some searching and there are no journal articles making that claim. You are misrepresenting the larger extent of the Antarctic sea ice. As to those record temps, did you bother finding out that satellite coverage of the Antarctic is measuring surface temps is relatively new? Those temps may be occurring quite frequently. Trying to move the goal posts again are we? You said the weather is warmer - I said it is colder - and proved it with links. Lie. I said the reason more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is because the air is warmer. That is simple physics. What you posted was not that temperatures were colder over the continent all the time or generally. What you posted was that a satellite measurement said a new extreme low was discovered. Nothing about trends or overall weather. quote: You said the ice is thinner. I quoted 2 science articles that say - no it is thicker. No. You did not. You made that claim but you never produced any quotes or links to that effect. All you actually did was try and handwave away actually scientific studies showing the Anarctic ice cap is thinning.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/11/2013 11:29:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have posted no links in this thread saying the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker. I did some searching and there are no journal articles making that claim. You are misrepresenting the larger extent of the Antarctic sea ice. As to those record temps, did you bother finding out that satellite coverage of the Antarctic is measuring surface temps is relatively new? Those temps may be occurring quite frequently. Trying to move the goal posts again are we? You said the weather is warmer - I said it is colder - and proved it with links. Lie. I said the reason more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is because the air is warmer. That is simple physics. What you posted was not that temperatures were colder over the continent all the time or generally. What you posted was that a satellite measurement said a new extreme low was discovered. Nothing about trends or overall weather. quote: You said the ice is thinner. I quoted 2 science articles that say - no it is thicker. No. You did not. You made that claim but you never produced any quotes or links to that effect. All you actually did was try and handwave away actually scientific studies showing the Anarctic ice cap is thinning. Right. Just bad science all around again, Ken. To make it simple for you: First of all - have you ever had a cold front come into your area? When water vapor encounters a lower temperature - it rains or snows. The "average" relative humidity has nothing to do with it. As http://books.google.com/books?id=KpSqH8gxz1IC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=absolute+humidity+in+the+antarctic&source=bl&ots=3v1w8-1-t8&sig=_AqBtYarDXzPydmQf1WaU44GoOU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pl2pUovbJcX0qwGwx4H4Bg&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=absolute%20humidity%20in%20the%20antarctic&f=false notes, precipitation in the highland areas year round is almost continuous. Which means that the temperature is in equilibrium - the temperature already reflects continuous vapor delivery. The temperature reflects the heat of condensation plus radiative heat losses - already. Absolute (and hence relative) humidity are strongly temperature dependent - increasing more than 10 fold with a tiny temperature difference. As Arnundsen's data showed, relative humidity could easily change 30% in day (and this was well before "global warming"). So huge variations in water vapor delivered can occur with temperature changes that fall within the margin of error of temperature measurement. Ie., the meteorological research 1947-1994 had error margins of up to 5.4 degrees. Look- ice core samples show huge variation dating over centuries in the rate of snow formation at the poles. Neither the amount of ice present, nor the rate of formation - is unusual over the last 1000 years. Which means it isn't global warming.

truckinslave -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 1:44:58 AM)
If it's normally so cold that ice cannot form at the poles (I think I have that right.... :>)... then.... Why is there so much of it? It surely must have been.... wait for it.... wait..... wait.... almost there... a lot warmer when all of it was made, right???

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 7:51:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen You have posted no links in this thread saying the ice in Antarctica is getting thicker. I did some searching and there are no journal articles making that claim. You are misrepresenting the larger extent of the Antarctic sea ice. As to those record temps, did you bother finding out that satellite coverage of the Antarctic is measuring surface temps is relatively new? Those temps may be occurring quite frequently. Trying to move the goal posts again are we? You said the weather is warmer - I said it is colder - and proved it with links. Lie. I said the reason more water vapor is in the air over Antarctica is because the air is warmer. That is simple physics. What you posted was not that temperatures were colder over the continent all the time or generally. What you posted was that a satellite measurement said a new extreme low was discovered. Nothing about trends or overall weather. quote: You said the ice is thinner. I quoted 2 science articles that say - no it is thicker. No. You did not. You made that claim but you never produced any quotes or links to that effect. All you actually did was try and handwave away actually scientific studies showing the Anarctic ice cap is thinning. Right. Just bad science all around again, Ken. To make it simple for you: First of all - have you ever had a cold front come into your area? When water vapor encounters a lower temperature - it rains or snows. The "average" relative humidity has nothing to do with it. Yes, it does. The amount of water the air can hold is limited by that air's temperature. That is a fact. the reason Antarctica experiences so little precipitation is because it is so cold. Any increase in precipitation across the entire continent, which is what you claimed, would require an increase in temperature across the entire continent. quote: As http://books.google.com/books?id=KpSqH8gxz1IC&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=absolute+humidity+in+the+antarctic&source=bl&ots=3v1w8-1-t8&sig=_AqBtYarDXzPydmQf1WaU44GoOU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pl2pUovbJcX0qwGwx4H4Bg&ved=0CGkQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=absolute%20humidity%20in%20the%20antarctic&f=false notes, precipitation in the highland areas year round is almost continuous. Which means that the temperature is in equilibrium - the temperature already reflects continuous vapor delivery. The temperature reflects the heat of condensation plus radiative heat losses - already. Are you illiterate? Your source does not say what you claimed. What it does say quote: On the high plateau most precipitation occurs as a near continuous fall of minute ice crystals, totaling less than 50mm water equivalent per year. What that really means is that the air moves over the high ground cools even more and dumps what little water it still contains. This is pretty basic physics.

DomKen -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 7:53:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave If it's normally so cold that ice cannot form at the poles (I think I have that right.... :>)... then.... Why is there so much of it? It surely must have been.... wait for it.... wait..... wait.... almost there... a lot warmer when all of it was made, right??? Wrong. What is being said is that it is so cold there is very little water vapor in the air so there is very little precipitation. Based on average annual precipitation amounts Antarctica is the driest place on Earth.

Phydeaux -> RE: 0 + 0 (12/12/2013 10:37:06 AM)
I'll make the point again, Ken. Lets suppose, just for arguments sake that the humidity in antartica (absolute) is zero. It isn't, infact, it can't be, since the ice vapor pressure exists in equilibrium to the air above it. But, lets suppose its zero. Draw a box around antartica. Now, the waters around antartica are, well, water. The air just above that water is very cold - but not as cold. The water blowing off the oceans and into antartica will be saturated and will deliver water to the continent. The amount of water delivered has nothing to do with the humidity of antartica. It doesn't change the direction of the prevailing wind etc. It has to do with the amount of wind, the amount of water vapor in the winds. And it has to do with aerosol formation. Frankly, theres a lot of weird chemistry. I mean theoretically, CO2 would condense out in antartica, causing a slight natural low pressure, causing air to come off the water over the land. The same thing would also be true by black body radiation - the land would cool more/faster than the waters surrounding it. So, no. It is not a requirement that there be global warming to deliver more water to the poles. All that is required is that air currents deliver more water vapor. Could be tied to the cessation of el nino, changes in prevailing wind currents.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875