Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (51187)	5/12/2014 3:56:27 PM
From: Land Shark	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 86355

Melt water from summer land based glacier melt has lowered the specific gravity of the local sea, increasing the freezing point and causing more ice to freeze. It's one of these counterintuitive things associated with global warming. Tell me how has land based ice fared? But, you go ahead and deny on dude. I'm sure you'll deny this one too and keep on the narrative.

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (51187)	5/12/2014 4:20:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 Hawkmoon Respond to of 86355

Landshark's answer is funny. "The melting water on land causes the extended freezing in the Antarctic ocean". If he had a close look at Antarctica, he'd see that there is no melting on land. There are kilometres of ice covering Antarctica which runs of in monster glaciers. Those glaciers flow gently out over the ocean and break off in giant icebergs the size of small countries. He is inventing a perpetual motion machine. If the fresh water ice which flows into the ocean melts on contact with the ocean, then the ocean is already warm enough to melt the ice. So the ice won't melt then decide to freeze again until the following winter. Just as in the Arctic, there's a melting and refreezing cycle. Increasing ice coverage around Antarctica does not mean there's warming. It means it's colder than it was, or there's a lot more snow being deposited so the flow rate of icebergs outward is greater, causing greater coverage. If the ocean in the tropics is warmer, then that would deliver more snow to the poles. The end of the Little Ice Age should have seen warming which causes more snow to be delivered to the permafrost core of Antarctica. The increasing sea level shows that there has been heating and melting. But don't worry about sea level rising a millimetre or two a year. Worry about it rising 10 metres or 100 metres in a second when one of those many near-miss asteroids doesn't actually miss, and splashes down into, or even just over, the Pacific Ocean. An atmospheric explosion will depress the ocean surface causing a tidal wave. A mountain-sized asteroid would mean a good sized tsunami. Those are sea level rises we should worry about and live well clear of. Japan recently got another lesson about the dangers of life at sea level. Those people are not worried about thermal expansion over centuries. The surface of the Moon shows how many asteroids are incoming. The rate of each size can be calculated from the overlay of craters on top of each other. Because Earth's gravity is greater, there would be more hit Earth than the Moon. Near miss asteroids past the Moon are not much deflected into impact. More would be deflected into Earth's atmosphere, like the Russian one. Probably not significant though. There must be studies by scientists into the craters on the Moon which would give quite precise information on just how many and when those craters were formed. There are showers of Asteroids which have known periods around the sun, and those will act as a time stamp on the Moon. Those asteroids orbit for hundreds of millions of years, so it's a long-running time stamp. Google should know. Mqurice