A theory that blew my mind (melting ice caps)

[JtotheIzzo]

So this guy who has lived in Greenland for large chunks of his life told me this:

1-icebergs are chunks of glaciers that break off and float at sea, they are migratory and have been documented as far back as early man. They are fresh water, not salt and they are not a result of sea ice melting.

2-during the last ice age the Earth from basically somewhere around the Carolinas northwards was covered in ice 3KM thick.

3-the ice has been retreating bit by bit since the last ice age, by about the same amount in tonnage or km2 year by year, a natural process we cannot control.

4-because the Earth's circumference gets shorter and shorter as we go north the distance the ice recedes is longer (same tonnage or km2 but because of the short circumference it takes up more area).

5-this explains why icecap loss is accelerating, there isn't more of it melting (in tonnage or km2) there is just less land (km2) so the linear ice loss becomes more dramatic each year. the stories of people saying "ten years ago the glacier was here, now it is back there." are completely true, but the climate is in constant flux, 10,000 years ago they went much further south.

6-we will have another ice age, but it is beyond our control, eventually enough of the polar ice will melt that it will knock the Earth off its axis slightly and this will change weather patterns and create another ice age.

Climate change is real, but there ain't shit we can do about it or ever could. Change is constant

[JtotheIzzo]

Fvk it, don't try and make things better

Some dude in Greenland

Cool

Glad to see you still have the reading comprehension of a 5 year old.

Cool

[DeuceWallaces]

It is real.

Definitely lots that can be done in the interim.

Glaciers only extended as far as Indiana-Illinois.

[JtotheIzzo]

Something that just blew my mind was this dude somehow wasn't on my ignore list


33K posts into the game and still butthurt, damn, totally b*tchmade.

LOL, hick wrasslin fans:roll:

[JtotheIzzo]

It is real.

Definitely lots that can be done in the interim.

Glaciers only extended as far as Indiana-Illinois.

interesting, but do you think they will stop receding, since they have receded from a much further point south to this point?

I am not a climate change denier, but I found his viewpoint pretty amazing.

[Clyde]

Something that just blew my mind was this dude somehow wasn't on my ignore list

:roll:
:applause:
:bowdown:

[Im Still Ballin]

Ice is the solid form of water

[DeuceWallaces]

interesting, but do you think they will stop receding, since they have receded from a much further point south to this point?

I am not a climate change denier, but I found his viewpoint pretty amazing.

I don't do this type of work beyond what I see at a couple seminars every year in our department from people that do.

That being said, I don't think the shrinking circumference of the Earth plays a factor in any calculations. In fact I'm certain it doesn't. Glacial melting is tracked in square kilometers of ice loss per unit of time. This would be independent of the Earth's area. Therefore, any report you read about an increasing rate of ice loss, or lets say a new-found exponential loss of ice vs. a previously thought to be linear rate, will be unaffected by the Earth's geometry.

I'm not sure if models predict a complete loss. I would assume that there will always be some ice at the northern most point; unless something really bad happens.

[Akrazotile]

33K posts into the game and still butthurt, damn, totally b*tchmade.

LOL, hick wrasslin fans:roll:


Holy fukk I never noticed this.

33k posts since 2011??? :biggums:

Makes me look like a lurker.

[JtotheIzzo]

Holy fukk I never noticed this.

33k posts since 2011??? :biggums:

Makes me look like a lurker.

and droppin ignore list *jokes* too, Lebron23 might try and f*ck him up for stealing his bit.

[Akrazotile]

I don't do this type of work beyond what I see at a couple seminars every year in our department from people that do.

That being said, I don't think the shrinking circumference of the Earth plays a factor in any calculations. In fact I'm certain it doesn't. Glacial melting is tracked in square kilometers of ice loss per unit of time. This would be independent of the Earth's area. Therefore, any report you read about an increasing rate of ice loss, or lets say a new-found exponential loss of ice vs. a previously thought to be linear rate, will be unaffected by the Earth's geometry.

I'm not sure if models predict a complete loss. I would assume that there will always be some ice at the northern most point; unless something really bad happens.


The larger the mass of ice, the slower is the rate of melting, no?

So even if the Earth's temperature were perfectly static, it would take less time for a sheet of ice to reduce from 75 sq kilometers to 50 than it did from 100 to 75, right?

In other words, the rate at which ice melts will perpetually increase naturally as its mass becomes smaller. Even without external catalysts.

[Akrazotile]

Yeah but like 4 words per post

You at like 1000 words per post homie



Quality over quantity :pimp:


Well, in my case quality and quantity

[JtotheIzzo]

I don't do this type of work beyond what I see at a couple seminars every year in our department from people that do.

That being said, I don't think the shrinking circumference of the Earth plays a factor in any calculations. In fact I'm certain it doesn't. Glacial melting is tracked in square kilometers of ice loss per unit of time. This would be independent of the Earth's area. Therefore, any report you read about an increasing rate of ice loss, or lets say a new-found exponential loss of ice vs. a previously thought to be linear rate, will be unaffected by the Earth's geometry.

I'm not sure if models predict a complete loss. I would assume that there will always be some ice at the northern most point; unless something really bad happens.

interesting.

[ButterFace]

Climate change is real, but there ain't shit we can do about it or ever could. Change is constant

There is 1 option:

http://www.badmovies.org/movies/earthcore/earthcore2.jpg

[Bandito]

Quality over quantity :pimp:


Well, in my case quality and quantity
The only quality post you make is when you don't post at all.

[gigantes]

1-icebergs are chunks of glaciers that break off and float at sea, they are migratory and have been documented as far back as early man. They are fresh water, not salt and they are not a result of sea ice melting.

2-during the last ice age the Earth from basically somewhere around the Carolinas northwards was covered in ice 3KM thick.

...

Climate change is real, but there ain't shit we can do about it or ever could. Change is constant
couple tidbits...

1 - actually even sea ice is mainly fresh water. the process of freezing pushes most of the salt water downwards and it sinks from there.

2 - at various places around the country you can see the grooves left over from sliding glaciers / ice sheet material.

http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/04/4f/15/56/glacial-groove.jpg


climate change due to naturally occurring factors is real, but that has very little to do with the non-scientific debate about whether man has had a hand in it.

change is constant, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to alter or exacerbate that change to your own detriment. you don't shit in your own nest and then say "shit is everywhere, so there's nothing i can do about being covered in it," right...?

[Draz]

Who wants the fade yo

[DonD13]

Ice is the solid form of water

:basketball

[Bosnian Sajo]

Yeah but like 4 words per post



Yep, just keep trying to justify it, buddy :applause:

[KevinNYC]

The larger the mass of ice, the slower is the rate of melting, no?

No.

You can have the same rate of melting apply to two different masses of ice.

Just as you can have a smart car go 60 miles per hour and a 18 wheeler go 60 miles an hour.

You might be getting confused with surface area which affects rate of melting, if you already have the rate, you don't need to worry about that.

[Akrazotile]

No.

You can have the same rate of melting apply to two different masses of ice.

Just as you can have a smart car go 60 miles per hour and a 18 wheeler go 60 miles an hour.

You might be getting confused with surface area which affects rate of melting, if you already have the rate, you don't need to worry about that.


Not with an equal expenditure of energy.

Maybe I didnt word it optimally but what Im saying is, an ice cube and a glacier side by side are not going to decrease by percentage at the same rate. The ice cube will be 50% melted long before the glacier.

So a diminishing ice cap will also decrease by percentage at a greater and geater rate.

[DeuceWallaces]

Starface is speaking to the surface area to mass ratio. In theory the glacier will melt at a constant rate assuming constant proportions. Although, what happens more often is the glacier fragments as it loses mass which will greatly increase the surface area along the length of the fracture which will rapidly increase the rate at which it melts.

[buddha]

picture the earth like a cocktail and the icecaps like ice cubes and you will realize you are retarded.