Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Cube, Ice CUBE - you can say it

Posted 1 year ago on Feb. 21, 2013, 9:07 a.m. EST by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Recent developements have permitted agencies like NASA to in effect measure the thickness of the Ice Cap. They call it an ice sheet, but really it's not a sheet. It's a cube. Measuring its surface area really doesn't help anyone understand its relative stability if you don't know how thick it is. In a way it's like a really big refigerator, an earth sized version of cold storage.

The upper atmosphere is also a repository of coldness, as is the deep sea. As we trap more heat, this provides energy. This leads to a greater excitement among molecules. Excited molecules jump around with greater enthusiasm, leading to an overall increase in circulation world wide. We see some of this circulation in the form a wildly oscillating jet stream, and huge storms, storms like Katrina and Sandy, storms that stir the upper atmosphere and the oceans depths.

All of this stirring leads to heat transference.

IF temps have been relatively stable world wide for the past decade, the biggest contributor may be heat transference from these sources of cold storage. Once the overall volume of cold storage is reduced, we will again see temperatures climb, and they may well climb in a precipitous manner.

Once the volume of cold storage has been reduced past a certain point, there may not be any other mitigating factor of significance.

That's my thinking, anyway. I'm not a scientist. But someone should tell Trashy Macaque that it is not called an ice cube for nothing.

32 Comments

32 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago
  • upper level low system

I said

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Sounds real to me.

It doesn't look to me, though, that we'll need to worry about global warming. Our rich masters may have to deal with it but we'll probably all have starve due to the economic catastrophy brought on by their hoarding of the wealth we need to live.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

That sounds about right - well - except for those along the coast, who will be ignored with every catastrophe. Sandy was just the beginning. The hording whores

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

The rate of concentration of wealth is directly proportional to the increase in global temperature. Cause and effect are inextricably intertwined.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I bet there is an intricate relationship between temps, the rate of wealth hording, and the speed with which NERO fiddles . . .

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

My Latin teacher said Nero's big burn was a Romantic form of slum clearance. The fiddling was coincidental. He wasn't attending to the execution of the mundane directive. Sort of like eating a $1000 gold flake hamburger in Manhattan while Brooklyn kids go to school hungry. Such things are apparently unrelated. Or is that un-apparently related?

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

Ah well. I'm not really up on Roman history. Not that history isn't interesting, it certainly is, there's just so dayum much of it today. I always assumed the fire started incidentally and consumed everything - while Nero remained oblivious.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The fiddle hadn't even been invented yet.

http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/nero1.htm

[-] 0 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

perhaps the cithara? Is the istrument the point?

[-] 0 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

The point is that you said the fiddling was coincidental. Not only was there no fiddle, Nero wasn't playing music for the week that Rome burned. He also wasn't oblivious.

[-] 2 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

The point is that music in that context, is irrelevant. Nero started the fire to get rid of the slums and the poor who lived there. It was a Nero war on poverty, which is the kind the cons have in mind today and have since they lost the civil war and had to give up slavery.

Lincoln was a liberal Republican who would disinherit his party if he was alive today.

The global warming problem is the economic problem of too few people with too much money and power. The masters are worse tyrants and their greed causes more death and destruction than Nero ever dreamed of.

Yes. I ended the sentence with a preposition. And I like it!

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

And you have both the forensics and psych reports detailing not only Nero's guilt but his motives at the time? That's the benefit of not going to one of them slow high schools I guess. Your Latin teacher must have been well connected!

It's good to know that you speak for Lincoln and the entire Republican party as well.

[-] -1 points by kendallone (-28) 1 year ago

You should be banned for delving into more absurd conspiracy's.

[-] 0 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 1 year ago

MaMa earth is just starting to do a little house cleaning.As George said she will be her for a long time.

[-] -2 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

Oh my God! It's the end! Why won't Obama save us?

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 1 year ago

this is a world issue

[-] -2 points by Einsatzgruppen1 (-56) 1 year ago

Irrelevant. A world issue is nonsense considering the current political situation.

[-] -2 points by kendallone (-28) 1 year ago

Obama was supposed to stop the seas from rising and start Mother Gaia healing. Just more broken promises.

[-] -3 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I can't all it a cube. Because a cube is a symmetrical shape contained by six equal squares. Unless the ice cap's depth is the same as it's width and height, and all sides are the same then it's not a cube.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/students/weather/weather1.htm

Read up. Wind, sun, rotation of the planet, the continents, and "things" going on in the ocean also affect the movement of the oceans.

Oh, and the "upper atmosphere" isn't trapping heat at the moment either. It's cooling. Google it

Question-if CO2 and other greenhouse gases are causing the upper atmosphere to cool....and that cooling has indeed (as you theorized) been what has been keeping the planet from warming for the past decade....what happens if we STOP putting increased CO2 up there?

Hummmmmmm.....

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

IF? IF? Who says co2 is causing the upper atmosphere to cool - for all you know it could well be the upper atmosphere has transfered energy from the loss of ice . . .

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Drama king.-

Still can't quote me accurately can you?

I said "If CO2 and other greenhouse gases"

And Nasa along with every other serious science group SAYS -"Greenhouse gases tend to cool the upper region of the atmosphere"

http://climate.nasa.gov/climatechangeFAQ

Cooling due to the greenhouse effect

"The second effect is more complicated. Greenhouse gases (CO2, O3, CFC) absorb infra-red radiation from the surface of the Earth and trap the heat in the troposphere. If this absorption is really strong, the greenhouse gas blocks most of the outgoing infra-red radiation close to the Earth's surface. This means that only a small amount of outgoing infra-red radiation reaches carbon dioxide in the upper troposphere and the lower stratosphere. On the other hand, carbon dioxide emits heat radiation, which is lost from the stratosphere into space. In the stratosphere, this emission of heat becomes larger than the energy received from below by absorption and, as a result, there is a net energy loss from the stratosphere and a resulting cooling. "

http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/20c.html

For all you know it could well be that the upper atmosphere just didn't wear it's gloves and coat out....

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

I still say your tie is way too loose

and you can naysay all you like. It would take a minimum of two decades of consistent, net gain in polar ice for me to even consider the possibility that we aren't fucked nearly as bad as I think we are.

[-] 0 points by oldJohn (-646) 1 year ago

It's important to create a communal run website for Occupy. We can then ensure that there are enough moderators and programmers, and that the writers are transparent are participate in the discussions following their articles. We can also ensure that there is a real connection to the ground. How nice it would be to discuss issues with people from affinity groups. They could ask those who are limited to the Internet because of distance or sickness to help by making posters, or other electronically created items.

We must build a bridge to the ground. It must be transparent. It must be communal.

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

that's one of the reasons why I insist -

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

I still say you might be a homicidal maniac.

The only way you're going to get two decades of consistent net gain in the ice is if we were entering an ICE AGE. And we'd just be screwed in the opposite direction.

Lucky for all of us, the climate isn't dependent on your opinion of what it possible and what is not.

[-] 2 points by ZenDog (20500) from South Burlington, VT 1 year ago

anything is possible

not everything is likely

[-] 0 points by OTP (-203) from Tampa, FL 1 year ago

Would you like to reduce pollution regardless? Do you believe alternatives could possibly be artificially held down as of right now?

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

Alternatives "held down" by whom? As ZenDog said, anything is possible. But that doesn't constitute proof of anything.

I'm all for reducing pollution. But if the earth's natural mechanisms are driving warming and cooling and everything else, then it's entirely possible that we could reduce all the pollution we've created and still end up extinct in the end.

[-] 1 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

Each burned C takes two Os with it [or one if poisonous CO is formed].

The pre oil/coal atmosphere was 80% N, 18% O and 2% all the rest.

As the % O decreases and CO2 increases, at what point do we begin to suffer from oxygen deprivation?

What happens to mammals that are deprived of oxygen?

Loss of the ability to think clearly is obviously the first symptom.

[-] -1 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

All the data I read says 20% O, not 18%.

And roughly 19.5%, or half of a percent decrease in O would bring on oxygen deprivation.

Luckily, CO2 only makes up .039% of our atmosphere so we'd need a hell of a lot of it to drop the oxygen level that far and the toxicity of the air from that much CO2 would have already killed us.

[-] 0 points by agkaiser (1299) from Fredericksburg, TX 1 year ago

They say 20% in elementary school and slow high schools. When I studied chemistry at the University of Cincinnati in the 1960s, it was approximately 18%.

Approximately is a word that big people understand. When I switched to Electrical Engineering in the 1980s, it was still ~18% in chemistry and physics courses that I took for my new degree.

Look it up. You can't depend on hearsay.

[-] -2 points by vaprosvyeh (-400) 1 year ago

You know, I musta done grad je ated from one of them thar slow high schools, cuz I looks up stuff like dis all de time.

Which is why I don't have to depend on YOUR hearsay.

Smithsonian.com-April 19, 2010

"The earth’s atmosphere is made up of a lot of nitrogen (78 percent), a bit of oxygen (21 percent), a splash of argon (0.93 percent), a small amount of carbon dioxide (0.038 percent) and trace amounts of other gases."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/specialsections/ecocenter/air/EcoCenter-Air-The-History-of-Air.html

NASA-http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/earthfact.html

Atmospheric composition (by volume, dry air): Major : 78.08% Nitrogen (N2), 20.95% Oxygen (O2), Minor (ppm): Argon (Ar) - 9340; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 380 Neon (Ne) - 18.18; Helium (He) - 5.24; CH4 - 1.7 Krypton (Kr) - 1.14; Hydrogen (H2) - 0.55 Numbers do not add up to exactly 100% due to roundoff and uncertainty. Water is highly variable, typically makes up about 1%

Scientific American-2009 (Penn State Professor)

"Most important, how did the amount of atmospheric oxygen reach its present level? "It's not that easy why it should balance at 21 percent rather than 10 or 40 percent," notes geoscientist James Kasting of Pennsylvania State University. "We don't understand the modern oxygen control system that well."

UCSB-Physics Dept-http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~lgrace/chem123/troposphere.htm

"nitrogen (78 percent) and oxygen (21 percent), with the remaining 1- percent consisting of argon, (.9 percent) and traces of hydrogen ozone ( a form of oxygen), and other constituents"

Maybe all that darn advanced technology has given us more precise measurements than we had 50 years ago?