Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- NPR Climate Experts
- Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- “Siberia might stay livable”
- Deep Thinking From The Atlantic
- Making Up Fake Numbers At CBS News
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- “experts warn”
- End Of Snow Update
- CBS News Defines Free Speech
- “Experts Warn”
- Consensus Science With Remarkable Precision
- Is New York About To Drown?
- “Anti-science conservatives must be stopped”
- Disappearing New York
- New York To Drown Soon
- “halt steadily increasing climate extremism”
- “LARGE PART OF NORTHERN CALIF ABLAZE”
- Climate Trends In The Congo
- “100% noncarbon energy mix by 2030”
- Understanding The US Government
- Cooling Australia’s Past
- Saving The World From Fossil Fuels
- Propaganda Based Forecasting
- “He Who Must Not Be Named”
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Grok 3 Trusts The Government
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- William on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- gordon vigurs on “Siberia might stay livable”
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on NPR Climate Experts
- conrad ziefle on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
- conrad ziefle on “Siberia might stay livable”
- Timo, not that one! on “Siberia might stay livable”
- arn on Defending Democracy In Ukraine
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