CLIMATE RESEARCHERS TRAPPED IN..... ICE

[nero_bolt]

To funny

But then it could be the Bondi winds and Australian climate change thats caused this..... Or maybe it was the Bogans.....

HHmmm better put a carbon tax on the Antarctic

--------------------------------------------------------

2013 was a big year for ice with global sea ice hitting or nearing record highs.

A dramatic example caught the attention of the world Christmas morning, when a vessel hired by group of global warming scientists radioed for help after becoming trapped in ice off Antarctica. 

The Russian m/v Akademik Shokalskiy has 74 researchers and crew aboard and they managed to celebrate Christmas despite their frozen predicament.

Chris Turney, who is a professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales, is the leader of the  expedition He posted a video to Youtube optimistically predicting that Snow Dragon would reach his position within a few hours, but the ice breaker was forced to turn back. - 

Other vessels are headed to the scene and  Snow Dragon is waiting and hoping that high winds will push aside some of the ten foot thick ice enabling it to reach the trapped researchers.

The waters around Antarctica experienced remarkable sea ice expansion in 2013 confounding the global warming ice narrative.

Global warming campaigners have been stymied by the lack of any temperature increase in the major temperature data sets since the nineties.   (but the alarmist here in Australia and on this forum continue with the scare campaign thats proving to be a huge LIE) 

They’ve tried to compensate by feeding the media a steady stream of “extreme weather” stories and with shrill claims about polar ice. 

However, historical and scientific data shows today’s weather to be normal. 

2013 was in fact particularly tame by many standards with no hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. and data on droughts, fires heat wave, floods, etc. all coming in at or below average.

The global warming campaign seized on northern sea ice in an attempt to find some evidence to show warming. 

Northern ice has had a few sparse years recently.  Al Gore told COP 15, the UN climate conference in Copenhagen, that the North Pole could be “completely ice free” within five to seven years. 

However, 2013 did not cooperate with that narrative either, as northern ice expanded over 50 percent above 2012 levels. 

Yachts and research vessels attempting to make news by transiting the Northwest Passage became trapped in the ice and their attempts had to be abandoned.  See, Gullible green sailors trapped in the Arctic. 

Likewise, alarmist claims about polar bears have run afoul of the facts as polar bear populations continue to expand and

thrive. - 

Climate scientists and pressure groups have enjoyed remarkable success at seeing their press statements about polar bears and polar ice reproduced by a compliant media without balance or question. 

The information age, however, has granted the public direct access to the unvarnished facts in unprecedented ways. 

Web services, such as CFACT’s Climate Depot and social media, publish the data the media ignores. 

Global warming hype can’t hold up under the scrutiny.

When the warming crowd attributes fluctuations in northern ice to human activity without basis, and then turns around and blames southern ice expansion on nature, the unbiased observer can’t help but but wonder whether nature is driving both.

Temperature records compiled by NASA, NOAA and the UK Met Office all show no global warming since the nineties, some cooling and very little warming before that. 

Climate computer models call for substantial warming which has not occurred.  Is the unbiased observer truly to conclude that while nature rules the south, summer northern sea ice will be no more because 2008, for example, was 0.4 degrees above average?  This is a classic case of a divorce between correlation and causation, and correlation is no longer looking very good.

Hysterical claims about polar ice are a propaganda talking point aimed to keep the global warming narrative flowing, absent any… well, global warming. 

The public continues to catch on. 

How long will the legacy media keep reprinting baseless warming claims, without critical examination, when they defy actual data? 

Will embarrassing images of yachts and research vessels trapped in ice, which failed to diminish as predicted, help snap the media out of it?

- See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2013/12/28/antarctic-ice-blocks-ice-breaker-sent-to-rescue-climate-researchers-...

[poddster · Accepted solution]

LL why do the so called climateologists include water suspended ice in the shonky calculations?

oh yes it makes the figures look better to support their B/S

[lakeland27]

---

@poddster wrote:

Regardless of volulume above water level of suspended ice the water level will not rise, ever heard of displacement?

Google is you friend

---

 thats right, but this was about that ice melting. its no longer above sea level in an accurate test.. further displacement.

[poddster]

So are you questioning the result of the experiment that i have described?

On what grounds?

[lakeland27]

okay. say you skip the melting stage. you place rocks in a full bath . how many rocks do you use based on the volume of water (all oceans ) V  the volume/mass of above sea level ice (total) floating, glacial etc etc. ?

[poddster]

LL are you aware that ice if just water at a temperature below freezing point and not rocks?

I did specifically state suspended ice not suspended rocks or gold or any other element.

water suspended ice has no effect on the rise of sea levels. A very basic fact that the alarmists fail to grasp of if they do grasp it they are shonky and include it in the calculations to deceive.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@poddster wrote:

Just a very quick experiment you can do at home in about an hour that involves water a water container and ice.

What would happen if you filled a container with water to the brim then put ice cubes in it so that they were above the level of the wate and the rim of the container. then you wiped away the spillage and let the suspender and protruding ice melt. would the container over flow??

Try it and then do some rethinking on sea level changes due to the Arctic ice meltimg 🙂

---

---

---

---

---

---

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

you forgot to put a piece of celery in the container that reached to the bottom with a large piece of frozen ice stuck to

the top of it ABOVE THE WATER LINE to simulate the GLACIAL ICE IN THE ARTIC that is not already a part of the

water mass.

If you understood the theory a little more then you would understand that no matter how much SEA ICE melted ocean

heights will not rise.

It is the addition of the molten glacial ice to the ocean (container) volume that was stored on land (the celery stick) that increases

sea level........... by 380 feet since the last ice age... and is now melting and causing seal levels to rise more quickly as the land mass belew them gets hotter, the glacial uice becomes thinner and  ABSORBS more heat rather than REFELECTING it as it was more prone to do when the glacial ice was thicker

So poddster what would happen if you were able to add a piece of celery with a frozen block not suspended by water at the top and bottom of you experiment

......just for the sake of argument we should make the experiment suit the model of the the theory you are tyrying to expunge

[colic2bullsgirlore]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm

The main ice covered landmass is Antarctica at the South Pole, with about 90 percent of the world's ice (and 70 percent of its fresh water). Antarctica is covered with ice an average of 2,133 meters (7,000 feet) thick. If all of the Antarctic ice melted, sea levels around the world would rise about 61 meters (200 feet). But the average temperature in Antarctica is -37°C, so the ice there is in no danger of melting. In fact in most parts of the continent it never gets above freezing.


There is a significant amount of ice covering Greenland, which would add another 7 meters (20 feet) to the oceans if it melted. Because Greenland is closer to the equator than Antarctica, the temperatures there are higher, so the ice is more likely to melt.

ment.nationalgeographic.com.au/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/

Peru's Quelccaya ice cap is the largest in the tropics. If it continues to melt at its current rate—contracting more than 600 feet (182.8 meters) a year in some places—it will be gone by 2100, leaving thousands who rely on its water for drinking and electricity high, dry, and in the dark.

http://www.livescience.com/39606-melting-ice-pine-island-glacier.html

 A two-month-long expedition to one of the most remote sites on the planet — the sprawling Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica — has revealed that currents of warm water beneath the glacier are melting the ice at a staggering rate of about 2.4 inches (6 centimeters) per day.

An international team of researchers journeyed to the southernmost continent to study the Pine Island Glacier, which is the longest and fastest-changing glacier on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. This region, in the far reaches of Antarctica, has been of particular interest to scientists because it is among the most rapidly melting ice masses in the world, thinning as it flows to the Amundsen Sea at a rate of about 2.5 miles (4 kilometers) each year.

Since warm seawater flows beneath the ice shelf (the part of the glacier that floats on the ocean), scientists have known that the Pine Island Glacier was melting from below. Now, using sensors deployed across the 31-mile-long (50-km-long) glacier, the researchers have gauged the rate of glacial melt beneath the solid ice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850

The Little Ice Age was a period from about 1550 to 1850 when the world experienced relatively cooler temperatures compared to the present. Subsequently, until about 1940, glaciers around the world retreated as the climate warmed substantially. Glacial retreat slowed and even reversed temporarily, in many cases, between 1950 and 1980 as a slight global cooling occurred. Since 1980, a significant global warming has led to glacier retreat becoming increasingly rapid and ubiquitous, so much so that some glaciers have disappeared altogether, and the existence of a great number of the remaining glaciers of the world is threatened. In locations such as the Andes of South America and Himalayas in Asia, the demise of glaciers in these regions will have potential impact on water supplies. The retreat of mountain glaciers, notably in western North America, Asia, the Alps, Indonesia and Africa, and tropical and subtropical regions of South America, has been used to provide qualitative evidence for the rise in global temperatures since the late 19th century.[3] The recent substantial retreat and an acceleration of the rate of retreat since 1995 of a number of key outlet glaciers of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, may foreshadow a rise in sea level, having a potentially dramatic effect on coastal regions worldwide.



better off comparing apples wiith apples when you decide on a METHOD..... otherwise the experiment  as you

described it poddy is  comparing apples with ....unicorn horns...... or are you now being told to employ obfuscatory

tactics???

[colic2bullsgirlore]

---

@poddster wrote:

So are you questioning the result of the experiment that i have described?

On what grounds?

---

Just had a though on how your experiment could be useful poddster............

If you made all your ice cubes out fresh water and the surrounding water was saline in your container......... say at about

35000 PPM and you had some sea monkeys (Krill) in the container that required around 35000 ppm saline solution to

survive.....What would happen to the sea monkeys when the ice melted???? regardless of how the water height varied

or didnt vary at all??? It is not just water height that is producing a problem re global warming for our fragile biggest

food source' ecosystems

[colic2bullsgirlore]

Tyhank you Poddy I just learned a new "thing"..... I just love "stuff"

........These blokes did the experiment for you Poddy but in a more "worldly' way and I just learned a little more about iceberg "freeboard" and how salinity  affects density which would cause your (properly constructed) experiment to continue to pour water over the side of the container

.... (that's if your experiment had anything to do with why Scientists include an amount  of sea rise height  factored for "floating" melting icebergs)....

28 pages below...and some diagrams....... for those that prefer diagrams

http://home.comcast.net/~pdnoerd/NoerdlingerBrower.pdf

SUMMARY

It is shown that the melting of ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about 2.6% greater than that of the originally displaced seawater.

The melting of floating ice in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm.

The sliding of grounded ice into the sea, however, produces a mean water level rise in two parts; some of the rise isdelayed.

The first part, while the ice floats, is equal to the volume of displaced sea water. The secondpart, equal to 2.6% of the first, is contributed as it melts.

These effects result from the difference in volume of equal weights of fresh and salt water. This component of sea rise is apparently unrecognized in the literature to date, although it can be interpreted as a form of halosteric sea level change by regarding the displaced salt water and the meltwater (even before melting) as a unit.

Although salinity changes are known to affect sea level,all existing analyses omit our calculated volume change. We present a protocol that can be used to calculate global sea level rise on the basis of the addition of meltwater from grounded and floating ice; of course thermosteric volume change must be added.

6. Conclusions
Given the substantial melting of sea and shelf ice in progress(Alley et al 2005,Comiso 2002, Dixon 2003, Meehlet al 2005), the volume increase found here could add incrementally to the known sea level rise from the melting of ice.

A long term upper bound to that increment can be derived from the total volume of Antarctic floating ice, which is estimated (Lythe et al, 2001, British Antarctic Survey 2005) at about 700,000 km 3, a value with big standard error because floating ice thicknesses are poorly known (Comiso 2005).

The approximate nature of such numbers does not appreciably weaken our argument, because it is the difference in the volumes of displaced seawater and meltwater that counts.

Nevertheless, we adjust the volume estimate downwards for two reasons

First, the number we need is the displacement, or V2 in Fig. 2, which would be about 0.9 times the volume if the ice were pure, solid water ice and the thickness is measured, rather than the draft (Section 2.2).

Secondly, we allow a correction for brine entrained in sea ice.

Measurements of the salt content of sea ice vary widely, due to variations in the ice age and thickness, the salinity of the underlying ocean surface layers, and numerous other factors.

[colic2bullsgirlore]

"EUREKA I HAVE FOUND IT"...he said as he ran naked through the streets... and his bath got cold

http://efdl.cims.nyu.edu/publications/refereed/grl_melt_floating_ice_07.pdf

Contrary to popular belief, the melting of floating ice (in the form of ice shelves, icebergs and sea ice) may have a non-zero impact on sea level. This is because the melting process cools and dilutes the oceans on average, and unless these opposing effects exactly balance each other there will be a net change in the ocean density. We discuss how these subtle effects can be quantified and put bounds on the potential sea level rise associated with melting of the ice masses that are currently afloat in the world’s oceans.

Archimedes Principle
 As every schoolchild learns at an early stage of their science curriculum, a floating body displaces its own weight in water.

This deceptively simple yet immensely powerful principle was first articulated by the Greek mathematician and philosopher Archimedes (287–212 BC), who, according to popular legend, leaped from his bath and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse shouting ‘‘Eureka!’’ (‘‘I have found it!’’) upon its realisation.

Because of Archimedes Principle, ice discharged from a grounded ice sheet into the ocean has an immediate impact on sea level, even though it remains part of the cryosphere until it subsequently melts. Indeed, once the ice is fully afloat its effective contribution to the total mass of the ocean has been made.

Subsequent melting simply replaces the mass of seawater, which has already been displaced by the ice, with an identical mass of meltwater.

Since the total mass of the ocean and ice remains unchanged during the melting process, this has often led to the erroneous  assumption that sea level will be unaffected by the melting of floating ice.

7. Summary
When floating ice melts in the ocean the effective mass of the ocean remains unchanged, but there is a change in its mean density.

Both the change in temperature and the change in salinity shown in Figure 3 must be considered when calculating the steric sea level rise (or fall) associated with this density change.

If the ocean is subsequently returned to its original temperature through heat exchange with the atmosphere, a further rise in sea level will accompany the warming, leaving the freshening as the only lasting impact of the ice.

In this case our final estimate of the net contribution from melting ice would be that presented in equation ( with the correction applied) and described by Noerdlinger and Brower [2007].

However, the subsequent warming of the ocean could be significantly delayed, particularly if the melting occurs in waters that are warm enough for the boundary layer water produced to be denser than its surroundings and to sink away from the sea surface. For this reason we suggest that it is more appropriate to calculate the steric change in sea level resulting from the melting of floating ice using equation (17) presented above, and regard any subsequent sea level rise associated with the recovery of the ocean to its initial temperature as a separate thermosteric effect