MELTING GLACIERS

[Richard111]

Talk about the blindingly obvious! It never occurred to me what would happen if the glaciers stopped melting.

This from GREENIE WATCH (links on page)

Quote:Sunday, September 27, 2009
 
ARE MELTING GLACIERS GOOD OR BAD?

An email below from Patrick Moore [pmoore@greenspirit.com], a co-founder of Greenpeace, to Benny Peiser

The issue of melting glaciers in the Himalayas, and elsewhere, makes my head hurt due to cognitive dissonance.

The UN COP15 Newsletter states, "Mountain glaciers in Asia are melting at a rate that could eventually threaten water supplies, irrigation or hydropower for 20 percent to 25 percent of the world's population, according to the UNEP report."

Lester Brown of the Earth Policy Institute puts it this way, "The melting of the glaciers in the Himalayas and on the Tibetan Plateau will deprive the Indus, Ganges, Yangtze and Yellow rivers of the ice melt that sustains their flow during the dry season and the irrigation systems that depend on them."

In other words the supply of melt water from the melting glaciers is threatened by the melting of the glaciers. This is correct in that if the glaciers melt completely there will be no more melt water from the glaciers.

What if the glaciers were not melting due to a colder climate? Then where would the irrigation water come from? How about if the glaciers were advancing 100 meters per year toward the villages that need the melt water for irrigation? How does the logic of this situation escape these bright minds?

It snows every winter in the Himalayas. When the snow melts it fills the rivers. Where there is net melting of the glaciers this adds additional water to the rivers. But they can't have it both ways. If they want to have continued melt water from the glaciers then the glaciers must continue to melt. Seeing that the glaciers are finite in size this would eventually result in no glacier, and reliance on annual snow melt. Am I missing something here?

[Richard111]

All these alarmist claims about rising sea levels induced me to try and compute the validity of the forecasts using simple science. The latest claim by the WWF of a 1 metre rise in ten years pushed me over the edge.

Not having a computer model to work with I must resort to the internet and the onboard calculator on my laptop. So here goes.

We need the global sea surface area, LINK, which gives us 361,132,400 square kilometres. A cubic kilometre will give us 1,000 slices 1 metre deep, so if we divide the global area by 1,000 we get 361,132.4 cubic kilometres of water. Some people talk in cubic miles, 1 mile is 1.6 kilometres, cubed, is 4.096 cubic kilometres. Divide our number by that and we have 88,167.09 cubic miles of water. Ice being less dense needs 1.1 cubic miles of ice to give 1 cubic mile of water so multyply by that and we have 96,983.8 cubic miles of ice that need to be melted. I am going to carry on in metric cos it's easier.

Here I quote from page 17 of one of Pat Tyson's essays:

Quote:The isothermal melting of ice requires some 334 kilojoules per kilogram at 273.16 K. At lower temperatures, it requires an average of some 2 kilojoules per degree more.

I will use the figure of 334,000 joules and ignore the fact that most ice is way below the 0.0C level. 1 cubic kilometre of water is 1,000 by 1,000 by 1,000 by 1,000 kilograms. Therefore we will need

334,000,000,000,000,000 joules to melt 1 cubic kilometre.

Multiply by 361,132.4 and we end up with a grand total of

120,618,221,600,000,000,000,000 joules

needed over ten years to melt our 96,983.8 cubic miles of ice. (note: this is the same mass as 361,132.4 cubic kilometres of water)

Now 10 years is 10 by 60 by 60 by 24 by 365.25 seconds which equals 315,576,000. Divide our grand total by this and we get an energy figure of

382,216,079,803,280.4 joules per second

for 10 years to melt the ice to raise the sea level by 1 metre.

How this energy gets to the ice I have no idea. Remember this ice is all in the polar regions which are quite a smallish area of the globe. If you spread that energy over the whole planet you get a "forcing" of 0.75 watts per square metre.

To give you an idea of how much energy is being moved about think of a kettle of water. My kettle holds 1.5 litres. You need 1 joule to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. Starting at 20 degrees and boiling at 100 we will raise the temperature of 1,500 grams of water by 80 degrees thus consuming 120,000 joules. Divide that figure into our per second level and we get 3,185,134,000 kettles of boiled water per second.

This exercise has been underestimating values, not least that a 1 metre rise in sea level which would cause much flooding, but has not been included, or that polar ice can be much colder than freezing thereby requiring more energy to melt.

So in summary I can say we need enough energy (and then some) to boil a bit more than 3,000,000,000 (three billion) kettles of water every second for the next ten years to melt enough ice to raise the sea level to a fraction less than 1 metre.

Frankly, I won't hold my breath. Note that all the latest alarming reports of melting ice carefully refrain from quoting any quantitive figures. This applies especially to the BBC reports. The only figure I can get quotes 55 cubic miles of melt from Greenland each year. That means it will take 1,763.3 years for sea level to rise 1 metre.

A lot can happen in that time.

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
There is no "Global" sea level. A point of fact there is no "Fixed" sea level any where on the globe unless it is an inland sea and then the level would be affected by various influences. When ever I see someone referring to catastrophic sea level rise I wonder what type of "Snake Oil" they are promoting. This is the same when I see a reference to "Global Warming" being a catastrophe. Or as you point out in your original post "Glaciers melting" They are supposed to melt in the season set aside for them to melt. Glaciers not melting would be more of a concern than if they melt.
I read recently about a glacier on Iceland that is retreating and uncovering farmland that has been buried for a while and the residents are happy that they are recovering this land. There were the Villagers in the Alps who are asking for permission to stop praying for the glaciers to stop advancing.

[Richard111]

[quote author=Mike Davis link=topic=261.msg1840#msg1840 date=1254361858]
Richard111:
There is no "Global" sea level. A point of fact there is no "Fixed" sea level any where on the globe unless it is an inland sea and then the level would be affected by various influences.
[/quote]

Sure thing Mike. But difficult to put over during coffee table chats. Did you note the 2 FOOT sea level rise along the East Coast of the USA this year? Lasted three months or so but hardly got a mention in the media. National Geographic mentioned it. Gulf Stream apparently slowing down. Bad news for the UK but again nothing in the media.

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
I believe I remember reading about a place in Alaska with a 40 ft tide guage. There was also the flood in Venice when the tide was at its hughest due to the declination of the moon and where it was at new state and with a wind blowing from Africa all things combined to allow a very high tide and the water taxi people went on strike that morning. Having visited the west coast during low and high tide in the 70s I am aware of the normal difference along that coast and the storm surge that occurs when the wind is blowing in the right direction.
I did not notice anything about a 2 ft rise due to a slowing of the Gulf Stream. That would have probably contributed to a cooler than normal period along with drying. That would be an off the top of my head guess because I am not familiar with your weather patterns. I see it as a lessening of wind from the south west that would bring warm moist air over your country.

[Richard111]

Mike, here's the link:

Sea Levels Rose Two Feet This Summer in U.S. East

I grew up in the harbour town of St. Aubin in Jersey, Channel Islands. 40 foot spring tides were the norm. When tide was out in St. Aubin's Bay the sea retreated three miles. You got the biggest ormers from the rocks then but when the tide turned you had to run!

I an now retired in Milford Haven, South West Wales where we get 20 foot tides. In seventy years of living by the sea I can't say I have ever noted any rise in sea levels.

Makes me an evolved sceptic.  ;D

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
I read your link and came away amazed at the ignorance/ stupidity coming out of the mouth of a so called scientist from NOAA. MYSTERY? Do Not Know the CAUSE? Foolishness! Natural shifts in oceanic, atmospheric currents such as AMO, NAO, and the location of the Jet Stream. If the jet stream is on shore the winds blowing north will be over the Mississippi Valley which they were most of the summer. The winds fron the North East which is a normal Fall situation would naturally follow a shift in the NAO/ AMO caused by a quiet sun or a shift in the earth/ Solar interactioon due to a quieter sun/ weaker magnetic influence.
Take your pick the number of options that affect the weather and the compinations available is only limited by your imagination. For someone to attempt to connect AGW with what is happening shows their lack of imagination and lack of understanding. The NOAA even has the GAUL to claim their abundant knowledge of the oceans and the atmosphere. I think it is time to disband that group and get real scientists to study climate.

[Richard111]

Mike, you're way ahead of me in the climate study game but I agree with your sentiments. Those guys seem to be sadly lacking. What about the one who was fixing contracts for a family member?

Anyway I made a boob when I was trying to be clever in Reply#1 above. Paragraph near the bottom I used wrong value for joules to heat water. Should be 4.186 joules to raise the temperature of one gram of water by 1 degree centigrade. The number of kettles then becomes three quarters of a billion a second for 10 years. Can't edit the post now. Ah, well, us non-scientists admit and correct our mistakes. In the mean time I'm following the tree-ring saga with interest. Wonder what will happen at Copenhagen.

[Sunsettommy]

Richard111:

Quote:Can't edit the post now. Ah, well, us non-scientists admit and correct our mistakes.

Sure you can!

Use the MODIFY button.

:police:

[mcclane]

[quote author=Richard111 link=topic=261.msg1851#msg1851 date=1254501036]
Wonder what will happen at Copenhagen.
[/quote]

way I see it, the greenies will push for such a draconian and regressive measure to 'prevent' climate change that gov'ts from developed countries will cut back emissions to levels seen since 1150.

[Richard111]

[quote author=sunsettommy link=topic=261.msg1856#msg1856 date=1254511763]
Richard111:

Quote:Can't edit the post now. Ah, well, us non-scientists admit and correct our mistakes.

Sure you can!

Use the MODIFY button.

:police:
[/quote]
Okay. Here I am logged in and making a post. no sign of a modify button so far.
Ah hah! Got the modify button now! Will it still be here after someone else has posted?

[Richard111]

Right. no modify button on older posts. Only last post. (Okay, button on last two posts. Definitely NOT on my older posts.)

Having found an error on heating of water I am hoping someone can verify my simplistic calculation regarding melting of ice.

My conclusion on the exercise is that the required volume of ice melt which must recieve ALL its energy from the atmosphere is impossible over the forecast time period. (average Arctic summer air temp = +3C. Ice cannot melt from air below 0C)

Maybe we could calculate a reasonable time period from observed evidence. Where to find this evidence?
I surmise sea temperatures would have to rise hugely to support a higher Arctic summer air temperature.

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
You are the engineer. I am only a retired systems analyst who happens to have followed climate as it affected my work and play. I have not found anything that supports AGW besides fabricated records and the so called "CURE" is worse than the disease. I recall people thinking like this in the early 70s but they had an excuse they were on drugs and high all the time.

[Richard111]

[quote author=Mike Davis link=topic=261.msg1872#msg1872 date=1254621671]
Richard111:
You are the engineer. [/quote]

Not a chance.  :laugh:  Until the age of 50 or so I specialised on radio equipment using thermionic valves, tubes to you guys. When they became transistorised and modulerised I transfered to computers where I became a Novell network manager. When they collapsed I ended up on the help desk as an analyst! sheeesh!

My interest in climate is pure survival mode. I am on a very limited pension and resent deeply the rising charges on my energy use. I am already living as we did back in the 1960's. wood stove for cooking and heating etc. THIS IN THE UK IN 2009 IS A DISGRACE!

[Richard111]

With regard to Reply #1 above, it has been puzzling me why some or all of that melt water has not been spotted. It will be fresh water, therefore should tend to stay on the surface for some time and show up as different coloured patches of sea water in the satelite pictures.

Trying to relate to all this water running into the sea led me to the Encarta site and some information on the Amazon river.

Quote:The Amazon River in South America carries the largest amount of water and runs for a length of 6,400 km (4,000 mi). This single river contributes 20 percent of the river water that flows into the world’s oceans.

By comparing the annual ice melt water flow (for a 1 metre sea level rise in 10 years remember) against the annual flow of the Amazon river:

36,113.24 divided by 6,307.2 (cubic kilometers) equals 5.73 Amazon Rivers!!!

I just cannot find any reports on the effects of all this fresh water flowing into the seas, never mind the expected annual rise in sea level of 100 millimetres to meet the 10 year deadline of 1 metre.

You don't think maybe the World Wildlife Fund have their facts wrong?

[Sunsettommy]

Richard,

have you accounted for AQUIFERS?

They can be enormous in some areas.

[Richard111]

[quote author=sunsettommy link=topic=261.msg1943#msg1943 date=1255453925]
Richard,

have you accounted for AQUIFERS?

They can be enormous in some areas.
[/quote]

LOL. No ways! I don't try to confuse people. I use these "facts" as sort of conversation stoppers when AGW crops up. I have a very low tolerance when people try to tell me what horrors are in store if we don't mend our ways. Some real hoorors coming soon they are not even aware of. Lot of early winter reports from around the NH such as early snows and ski resorts opening weeks early. And there are the demonstrations at the power stations. A big one due this week. Stupid government seems to encourage it. Look at those berks on the Parliament buildings. One of them was from India!

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
The water flowing out of the mouth of the Amazon started out as a single raindrop somewhere up stream. What would happen if there was a 1% increase in the amount of water in the hydrological cycle? A 1% decrease? The answers to those questions are not important but something to ponder. FWIW the hydrological cycle is not a constant but fluctuates from day to day and year to year. A 1 year average would not equal a 20 year average which would not equal a 60 or 100 year average and averageing this would distort reality just as the reality of global temperatures has been distorted. The reality is that there is no global temperature either.

[Richard111]

I agree Mike. But discussing averages leads to circular arguments that always deteriorate.

I live in the sea port town of Milford Haven and every year the Port Authority publishes tide tables. Crazy claims of 100 millimeters a year would show up on those tables. Nothing! Na-da!

[Mike Davis]

Richard111:
It is obvious that the land where you live has been rising at the same rate as the sea level. We all know that the models claim the sea is rising and the models can not be wrong!