Global warming is a scam.

--> @oromagi

You don't just eyeball values of solar joules and latent heat of ice. Anyone who lives in the north will tell you it can take quite a while for a mound of snowplowed ice to melt depending on how much ice there is in the mound, even in 70-degree weather.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/16/can-humans-melt-the-antarctic-icecap/

And then there’s the ice. We are supposedly melting the ice; the literature is filled with papers making this claim. These papers invariably whine about human activity warming the planet, but they never seem to get around to discussing how much energy is actually required, or how it gets to the ice. But do humans really generate enough energy to melt significant amounts of ice?

How much energy is needed to melt 1.32X10^6 Km3 of ice?

It takes 333.55X10^3 J to melt 1 kg of ice.

Doing the math, we see it takes 3.07X10^17 J to melt a cubic km of ice. This is our basic unit of heat energy for melting any large amount of ice in Antarctica, or anywhere else.

We have determined how much ice is involved in an 11-foot ocean rise: a volume of 1.32X10^6 Km3. To melt it, the ice must receive 1.32X10^6 Km3 X 3.07X10^17 J, or 4.05X10^23 J. This is true regardless of what process gets the heat to Antarctica. A steady melt would require 2.03X10^22 J per year to melt it in 20 years, or 8.1X10^21 J per year to melt it in 50 years.

We can argue until the cows come home about how that much heat can reach the glaciers. But for our nontechnical friends, it’s interesting to compare the energy requirement with how much energy humans produce. In other words, if humans set out to deliberately melt the Thwaites and Pine Island Glaciers in the Antarctic, could they even do it?

Well, let us see!

According to the US Energy Information Administration, in 2016 the world produced 84.412479 quadrillion (84.412479X10^15) BTU. That converts to 8.906X10^19 J, consisting of fossil fuel (the largest component), nuclear, and renewable. And if we used all of the world’s energy to do nothing but melt the ice, we could not do it in 20 years, or even in 50 years. We could do it in about 4,500 years.

That kind of heat to melt that much ice in 20 years would also require a significant increase in solar joules, one that would cause temperatures to rise far above 70 degrees F.

"The amount of solar energy reaching the surface of the planet is so vast that in one year it is about twice as much as will ever be obtained from all of the Earth's non-renewable resources of coal, oil, natural gas, and mined uranium combined,"

"In spite of the enormous transfers of energy into and from the Earth, it maintains a relatively constant temperature because, as a whole, there is little net gain or loss: Earth emits via atmospheric and terrestrial radiation (shifted to longer electromagnetic wavelengths) to space about the same amount of energy as it receives via insolation (all forms of electromagnetic radiation).

To quantify Earth's heat budget or heat balance, let the insolation received at the top of the atmosphere be 100 units (100 units = about 1,360 watts per square meter facing the sun), as shown in the accompanying illustration. Called the albedo of Earth, around 35 units are reflected back to space: 27 from the top of clouds, 2 from snow and ice-covered areas, and 6 by other parts of the atmosphere. The 65 remaining units are absorbed: 14 within the atmosphere and 51 by the Earth’s surface. These 51 units are radiated to space in the form of terrestrial radiation: 17 directly radiated to space and 34 absorbed by the atmosphere (19 through latent heat of condensation, 9 via convection and turbulence, and 6 directly absorbed). The 48 units absorbed by the atmosphere (34 units from terrestrial radiation and 14 from insolation) are finally radiated back to space. These 65 units (17 from the ground and 48 from the atmosphere) balance the 65 units absorbed from the sun in order to maintain zero net gain of energy by the Earth."

GP has badly misunderstood the source and nature of the heat driving climate change, which explains his erroneous conclusions.

"Since 2015 scientists have had a chance to look over the data and have had time to do a few follow-up studies and the results are clear.

It is agreed among scientists studying the situation that the Eastern area is gaining a lot of ice due to thousands of years of continued snowfall. However, measuring the size of that gain can be difficult at best. The major issues with Zwally’s study are that it used altimeter data from satellites, which is subject to systematic errors such as snowpack penetration and telling the difference between snow that is on the ground and snow that is still falling. Also, in order to calibrate their measurements, Zwally’s team bounced lasers of the Southern Ocean which may not have been reliable.'

'In a study published in 2017 scientists were able to combine information from satellite altimetry, gravimetry, and GPS to measure the ice balance in East Antarctica from 2003-2013 When looking at this data they were unable to confirm Zwally’s findings. This study concluded that gains in East Antarctica are smaller than losses in West Antarctica. In fact, the gains in East Antarctica were about a third of what Zwally’s study believed them to be.'

"We can clearly see that when these numbers are put together the continent is losing a lot of ice every year. Furthermore, the rate of loss is getting worse as time goes by."

"Zwally's... team agrees with the broader scientific community on the main issue: Antarctica is melting due to rising temperatures.

'Zwally said he hoped his study wouldn't detract from other research highlighting the scope and dangers of climate change.

"When our paper came out, I was very careful to emphasize that this is in no way contradictory to the findings of the IPCC report or conclusions that climate change is a serious problem that we need to do something about," he told Scientific American.

He also seemed aware some people would weaponize the study for political purposes.

"I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he said. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming."

Imagine living inside of a running microwave. That is what the alarmists are suggesting with a 20-year elimination of Antarctic land ice, but want us to focus on sea levels instead of seared flesh...

<i><br></i>

"At Earth’s average distance from the Sun (about 150 million kilometers), the average intensity of solar energy reaching the top of the atmosphere directly facing the Sun is about 1,360 watts per square meter, according to measurements made by the most recent NASA satellite missions.... A microwave uses about 1000 watts."

The surface area of the Earth is more than 510 billion square meters and the surface area of the atmosphere would be far greater than that.  Even so, we presently live with an total solar constant greater than that  of 500 billion microwave ovens.

Let's look at another source of heat the average person can fathom.

The Tsar Bomba was the largest test detonation of a thermonuclear device yielding 2.09 × 10^18 joules of energy.

Assuming we could somehow channel ALL that energy into the ice sheets, and knowing a steady melt would require 2.03X10^22 J per year to melt it in 20 years (this is additional energy added to the energy already applied currently from the sun)   

This would require 194260 Tsar Bomba detonations across the Antarctic ice sheets over 20 years.

9713 Tsar Bomba detonations per year, or alternatively,

27 Tsar Bomba detonations per day for 20 years. 

At that point, we should see a steady rise per year in sea levels of not a mere fraction of a millimeter, but 6.6 inches rise in sea level every year for 20 years.

If that amount of thermal energy was distributed evenly across the globe over 20 years, Sea levels would be the absolute LAST thing you would be worried about.

And yet, we are supposed to take alarmists seriously?

--> @oromagi

Reply

Who is the "they" that won't discuss nuclear power or China?

You, and Greta.

"Personally I am against nuclear power, but according to the IPCC [the United Nations Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change], it can be a small part of a very big new carbon free energy solution, especially in countries and areas that lack the possibility of a full scale renewable energy supply - even though it's extremely dangerous, expensive and time consuming. But let’s leave that debate until we start looking at the full picture."

 But let’s leave that debate 

I discussed China in this forum even before GP claimed that I won't discuss China.

--> @oromagi

Reply

 If GP does not trust his sources regarding climate change...

I don't trust alarmists. Especially political alarmists.

The USA has zero methods to prevent China from becoming a 40% global emitter of CO2 by 2030.

That some group of people is only responsible for one quarter of the problem does not serve as proof that the problem does not exist

Alarmist predictions should not exist. Especially ones used by politicians to gain wealth and power using fear to control the dumbasses.

--> @oromagi

Reply

That some people concerned about the problem are inefficient at problem-solving does not serve as proof that the problem does not exist.

Fake concern over politically useful alarmism is of immense value to a politician. The same politicians inevitably fly back home to their 30000 KW/Hr oversized homes, laughing in cigar smoked filled rooms, personally feasting on the palpable CO2 while pondering the limits of the lack of agency and the lack of rational oversight from a willingly frightened populace suckling on the teat of corporate MSM with the slow, steady IV drip of political CNN propaganda satisfying the amygdala.

--> @oromagi

Reply

You fall into the same trap as all hysteria junkies.

Falsely correlating legal and illegal immigration.

Falsely correlating climate change and climate alarmism.

Oromagi has decided to conveniently ignore the amount of thermal heat needed to completely melt the Antarctic ice sheets to satisfy the prediction of climate ALARMISTS - namely the prediction that the sheets will melt in 20 years.

The amount of thermal heat the sun would need to apply to do that in the very very short span of 20 years, (a politically expedient prediction as it is long enough timespan to keep pushing the narrative and short enough to scare the ignorant masses into hysteria) would most certainly roast the entire planet which did not have kilometers deep ice sheets. KFC extra crispy.

Oromagi is an alarmist apologist and probably brainwashed to trust political authority, not science and thermodynamic equations.

It's a moot point if alarmism is the poison tree that poisons all rational threats of global warming. 

The only thing more unpredictable than the weather is the ingenuity of men.

The only thing more unpredictable than the weather is the ingenuity of men.

In fact, 5-day forecasts are accurate 90% of the time.

In fact, 5-day forecasts are accurate 90% of the time.