Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- “Earlier Than Usual”
- Perfect Correlation
- Elon’s Hockey Stick
- Latest Climate News
- “Climate dread is everywhere”
- “The Atmosphere Is ‘Thirstier.’”
- Skynet Becomes Self Aware
- “We Have To Vote For It So That You Can See What’s In It”
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
Recent Comments
- arn on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gordon Vigurs on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Gamecock on “Earlier Than Usual”
- conrad ziefle on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Mac on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Bob G on “Earlier Than Usual”
- Francis Barnett on “Earlier Than Usual”
Yes, the polar ice cap was a stable monolith before AGW took hold and started melting it all away at the begin of time…..1979. Since then the laws of physics as defined by Post-Normal scientist do not allow for this precious resource to be renewed by the ancient process known as freezing. It can only melt under the evil influence of CO2. What a bunch of morons.
It would be interesting for the planet if it did not freeze. Since the vertical column can only exchange a finite amount of heat before freezing, the only way NOT to freeze is by moving that cold unfrozen 40m column of water into the pacific and atlantic basin, and replacing with warmer water, which would also NOT freeze.
Unfrozen winter water gives far more energy back to space than winter ice.
I’ve always wondered how much influence do the russian, canadian and US Icebreakers have. If you keep chopping up the ice at the turn of the seasons, it would have to have some effect on promoting movement in the ice floes. And we’ve got some serious ice breakers these days.
I agree Andy Oz. There are some new papers and studies on mechanical breakup of ice.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=+ice+mechanical+breakup+arctic&as_ylo=2013
Abrasion, friction, increase wind action, increased wave action, collision can’t be good for ice sheet viability.
Think about a ceramic tile floor with no grout between the joints. It is weak. Grout the floor and it becomes a single cohesive structure.
Ben has an interesting point here with frozen water columns. It sounds like less freezing would mean more heat loss to space, leading to – more freezing. Conversely, more freezing in the Arctic would lead to less heat radiated into space, leading to – ultimately more freezing. This sounds suspiciously to a hell of a good negative feedback system. And as an Electronics Engineer with more than 30 years of systems experience, negative feedback systems are good for – ready for it – STABILITY! Just kind of exaclty how the planet has behaved over billons of years. Even with major, life extinguishing asteroid hits, massive volcanic actions, changes in the solar visibile, UV, and magnetic field, the planet sure seems to keep coming back to a reasonably comfortable place over and over again.
Gary