Arctic ice thins dramatically

[RWatt]

"In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."
Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News

This didn't happen yesterday. She's talking about ice that's been added over millions of years.

The concern is about ice losses in greenland and antarctica that have occurred in recent years.

 

[westwall]

Antarctica is not warming as much because there's a hole in the ozone there larger than the continent itself.

That we created.

But the oceans have warmed up so much that the ice shelves are beginning to melt.

Antarctica is not warming because it's bloody cold down there! Oh, and your "hole that we made" BS is getting old. I highlighted the relevent parts for the scientifically impaired.

Chemists poke holes in ozone theory

Reaction data of crucial chloride compounds called into question.

Quirin Schiermeier


The hole in the ozone layer (blue) over Antarctica results from chemicals such as CFCs.NASA/AP

As the world marks 20 years since the introduction of the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer, Nature has learned of experimental data that threaten to shatter established theories of ozone chemistry. If the data are right, scientists will have to rethink their understanding of how ozone holes are formed and how that relates to climate change.

Long-lived chloride compounds from anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are the main cause of worrying seasonal ozone losses in both hemispheres. In 1985, researchers discovered a hole in the ozone layer above the Antarctic, after atmospheric chloride levels built up. The Montreal Protocol, agreed in 1987 and ratified two years later, stopped the production and consumption of most ozone-destroying chemicals. But many will linger on in the atmosphere for decades to come. How and on what timescales they will break down depend on the molecules' ultraviolet absorption spectrum (the wavelength of light a molecule can absorb), as the energy for the process comes from sunlight. Molecules break down and react at different speeds according to the wavelength available and the temperature, both of which are factored into the protocol.

Cl2O2 is key to ozone (O3) depleting reactions such as this one, in which photolysis results in a chlorine radical (Cl•) that reacts with O3.

So Markus Rex, an atmosphere scientist at the Alfred Wegener Institute of Polar and Marine Research in Potsdam, Germany, did a double-take when he saw new data for the break-down rate of a crucial molecule, dichlorine peroxide (Cl2O2). The rate of photolysis (light-activated splitting) of this molecule reported by chemists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California1, was extremely low in the wavelengths available in the stratosphere — almost an order of magnitude lower than the currently accepted rate. “This must have far-reaching consequences,” Rex says. “If the measurements are correct we can basically no longer say we understand how ozone holes come into being.” What effect the results have on projections of the speed or extent of ozone depletion remains unclear.

The rapid photolysis of Cl2O2 is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago2 (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

Other groups have yet to confirm the new photolysis rate, but the conundrum is already causing much debate and uncertainty in the ozone research community. “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany.

“Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it's like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.”

The measurements at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory were overseen by Stanley Sander, a chemist who chairs a NASA panel for data evaluation. Every couple of years, the panel recommends chemical kinetics and photochemical data for use in atmosphere studies. Until the revised photolysis rate has been evaluated, which won't be before the end of next year, “modellers must make up their minds about what to do,” says Sander. One of the problems with checking the data is that the absorption spectra of chloride compounds are technically challenging to determine. Sander's group used a new technique to synthesize and purify Cl2O2. To avoid impurities and exclude secondary reactions, the team trapped the molecule at low temperatures, then slowly warmed it up.

“Reactions in experimental chambers are one thing — the free atmosphere is something else,” says Joe Farman, one of the scientists who first quantified the ozone hole over Antarctica3. “There's no doubt that ozone disappears at up to 3% a day — whether or not we completely understand the chemistry.” But he adds that insufficient control of substances such as halon 1301, used as a flame suppressor, and HCFC22, a refrigerant, is a bigger threat to the success of the Montreal Protocol than are models that don't match the observed losses.

Meanwhile, atmosphere researchers have started to think about how to reconcile observations of ozone depletion with the new chemical models. Several thermal reactions, or combinations of reactions, could fill the gap. Sander's group has started to study possible candidates one by one — but so far without success.

Rex thinks that a chemical pathway involving a Cl2O2 isomer — a molecule with the same atoms but a different structure — might be at play. But even if the basic chemical model of ozone destruction is upheld, the temperature dependency of key reactions in the process could be very different — or even opposite — from thought. This could have dramatic consequences for the understanding of links between climate change and ozone loss, Rex says.

The new measurements raise “intriguing questions”, but don't compromise the Montreal Protocol as such, says John Pyle, an atmosphere researcher at the University of Cambridge. “We're starting to see the benefits of the protocol, but we need to keep the pressure on.” He says that he finds it “extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses.

Nothing currently suggests that the role of CFCs must be called into question, Rex stresses. “Overwhelming evidence still suggests that anthropogenic emissions of CFCs and halons are the reason for the ozone loss. But we would be on much firmer ground if we could write down the correct chemical reactions.”



Chemists poke holes in ozone theory : Nature News

 

[RWatt]

Ozone data conflict resolved : Nature News

Ozone data conflict resolved

Two years after puzzling experiments threatened to shatter established models of ozone depletion in the atmosphere, Taiwanese chemists have published data that support the currently accepted theory.

 

[westwall]

"In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."
Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News

This didn't happen yesterday. She's talking about ice that's been added over millions of years.

The concern is about ice losses in greenland and antarctica that have occurred in recent years.

I suggest you look at something either then skeptical science for your education. There is far more out there and they are a warmist group. There is not one unbiased article there and when you present legit articles that counter their pre-concieved notions it doesn't get printed. "Pal review" in action.

Here are two photo's of the Antarctic ice sheet. In the 1960's ITT built a power transmission line that used towers 115 feet tall. Since then the ice has grown enough to engulf all but the top 30 feet of the towers. The crane pictured is the one used to build the towers.

That's 85 feet of ice sheet depth increase in 45 years, give or take. When those get re-exposed I'll pay attention.

 

[RWatt]

"In some places up to half the ice thickness has been added from below," Bell and her international team of colleagues, reported in the new issue of the online journal Sciencexpress."
Antarctica Growing From The Bottom Up : Discovery News

This didn't happen yesterday. She's talking about ice that's been added over millions of years.

The concern is about ice losses in greenland and antarctica that have occurred in recent years.

I suggest you look at something either then skeptical science for your education. There is far more out there and they are a warmist group. There is not one unbiased article there and when you present legit articles that counter their pre-concieved notions it doesn't get printed. "Pal review" in action.

Here are two photo's of the Antarctic ice sheet. In the 1960's ITT built a power transmission line that used towers 115 feet tall. Since then the ice has grown enough to engulf all but the top 30 feet of the towers. The crane pictured is the one used to build the towers.

That's 85 feet of ice sheet depth increase in 45 years, give or take. When those get re-exposed I'll pay attention.

I suggest that if you are going to copy stuff from iceagenow.com you post a link to it rather than giving the impression it's your own work. Here's the almost exact wording from your post: http://www.iceagenow.com/Construction_Crane_Buried_in_Ice.htm

That and don't be hypocritical about sources when your source is far worse for both bias and not even allowing comments to correct their (many) mistakes.

In this case the data skepticalscience has posted is peer reviewed and you can track down those graphs to actual papers, they aren't made by skepticalscience. In the case of what you posted it's just an interpretation of a photo with the (wrong) assumption that the story behind that photo is the same across the whole of antarctica. But maybe NASA have got it wrong. Instead of building, launching and operating satellites that can measure the height and mass of ice over time, they should have just stuck two transmission poles somewhere (anywhere) in antarctica.

 

[westwall]

This didn't happen yesterday. She's talking about ice that's been added over millions of years.

The concern is about ice losses in greenland and antarctica that have occurred in recent years.

I suggest you look at something either then skeptical science for your education. There is far more out there and they are a warmist group. There is not one unbiased article there and when you present legit articles that counter their pre-concieved notions it doesn't get printed. "Pal review" in action.

Here are two photo's of the Antarctic ice sheet. In the 1960's ITT built a power transmission line that used towers 115 feet tall. Since then the ice has grown enough to engulf all but the top 30 feet of the towers. The crane pictured is the one used to build the towers.

That's 85 feet of ice sheet depth increase in 45 years, give or take. When those get re-exposed I'll pay attention.

I suggest that if you are going to copy stuff from iceagenow.com you post a link to it rather than giving the impression it's your own work. Here's the almost exact wording from your post: Construction Crane Buried in Ice

That and don't be hypocritical about sources when your source is far worse for both bias and not even allowing comments to correct their (many) mistakes.

In this case the data skepticalscience has posted is peer reviewed and you can track down those graphs to actual papers, they aren't made by skepticalscience. In the case of what you posted it's just an interpretation of a photo with the (wrong) assumption that the story behind that photo is the same across the whole of antarctica. But maybe NASA have got it wrong. Instead of building, launching and operating satellites that can measure the height and mass of ice over time, they should have just stuck two transmission poles somewhere (anywhere) in antarctica.

I have posted the link previously. I had the pictures on my desktop. I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers. In other words biased and full of bad science. There is no peer review in the climate science industry. It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...

In other words there is no peer review in climate science.

Now please explain the 85 feet of ice detailed in the photographs.

"In 2005 Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann, of Real Climate and CRU email fame, carefully explained that the process of peer review is a messy, incremental way to advance knowledge in fits and starts:

The current thinking of scientists on climate change is based on thousands of studies (Google Scholar gives 19,000 scientific articles for the full search phrase “global climate change&#8221. Any new study will be one small grain of evidence that adds to this big pile, and it will shift the thinking of scientists slightly. Science proceeds like this in a slow, incremental way. It is extremely unlikely that any new study will immediately overthrow all the past knowledge.
They explained that even when results are published that do not stand the test of time, the process of peer review can successfully winnow out those arguments with the greatest merit:

. . . even when it initially breaks down, the process of peer-review does usually work in the end. But sometimes it can take a while.
With this perspective as background, one of the most damning aspects of the CRU emails was the behind-the-scenes efforts of the activist scientists to -- in their own words -- "redefine what the peer reviewed literature is."

Peer review as related to scientific publishing is a process in which experts are asked to judge the appropriateness of a paper for publication in a scientific journal. It is often cursory and focused on the merits of an argument, rather than a detailed replication or decomposition of the data or methods. Peer review does not mean that a result is right or will stand the test of time, but that it has met some minimal standards of acceptability for publication. The scientific community is replete with vignettes about papers that were rejected for publication in one venue only to be published elsewhere and which later turned out to be seminal. Similarly, every so often even Science and Nature find themselves in trouble with a paper that is badly wrong or even fraudulent. But despite these shortcomings in the process, peer review is widely viewed much as Winston Churchill viewed democracy: the worst possible system except for all the others.

Peer review works because over the long-term good ideas win out, and this process happens organically and through a decentralized process. Peer review takes place through many independent journals, with editing and reviewing conducted by many independent scholars from a diversity of disciplinary and experiential backgrounds, and with their own idiosyncratic biases and views. No one group or perspective owns the peer review process, and that diversity is part of its core strength. Truth -- meaning a convergence to agreement on scientific questions -- thus is a product of the peer review process over time. Of course the path to truth can be convoluted and indirect. For instance, it used to be true that there were 9 planets in our solar system. Now that is less true.

Some issues relevant to decisions are characterized by uncertainties and contested certainties making the distribution of scientific views not readily apparent simply by looking at the sprawling literature. In such situations a formal assessment can provide a useful perspective on the degree of consensus or disagreement among relevant experts on various claims. Such assessments are nothing more than a snapshot in time, as science is continuously evolving. When done well, an assessment will reflect the full range of views held by relevant experts, including minority views (see PDF), as well as the connections of scientific understandings to alternative possible courses of action.

Now back to the CRU emails. The emails show a consistent pattern of behavior among the activist scientists to redefine peer review in accordance with their own views of climate science. In doing so, they sought to turn the entire notion of peer review on its head.

The emails show a group of scientists frustrated with the peer review process, seeking to change how it is practiced. How so? The emails indicate concerted efforts to reshape the peer review process by managing and coordinating reviews of individual papers, by putting pressure on journal editors and editorial boards, by seeking to stack editorial boards with like-minded colleagues, by arranging boycotts of journals and other actions involving highly questionable ethics. But we might wonder why these scientists would take such steps to change peer review if, as Schmidt and Mann explained at Real Climate -- "peer review usually does work in the end." Why depart from a process that works? The answer is obvious: the short-term politics of climate change.

The activist scientists decided that the peer review process would work better in service of their political agenda if it used "truth" to determine whose views would be allowed to be published in the literature and reflected in assessments. In this case "truth" simply means the views deemed acceptable among the activist scientists and their close clique of colleagues. In an interview with NPR Real Climate's Gavin Schmidt defended this very backwards view of peer review:


Journals are supposed to be impartial filters that let good ideas rise to the top and bad ideas sink to the bottom. But the stolen emails show that a group of scientists has decided that's not working well enough. So they have resorted to strong tactics — including possible boycotts — to keep any paper they think is dubious from reaching the pages of a journal.

"In any other field (a bad paper) would just be ignored," says Gavin Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York. "The problem is in the climate field has become extremely politicized, and every time some nonsense paper gets into a proper journal, it gets blown out of all proportion."

Most of the papers Schmidt and his colleagues object to challenge the mainstream view of climate science. Schmidt says they may be wrong or even deceptive, but they are still picked up by politicians, pundits and businesses who are skeptical of climate change.


So Schmidt suggests that in order to short circuit the ability of their political opponents to cherry pick and blow out of proportion studies that the activists scientists did not agree with, they saw a convenient short cut: Simply reshape the peer review system such that those papers don't ever appear or go unmentioned in scientific assessments.

The problem with this strategy, of course, is that many climate scientists (and presumably others inside and outside of the scientific establishment) are unwilling to cede ownership of the "truth" to a small clique of scientists. In fact, peer review exists in the first place because there are no short cuts to the truth, and any such short cut will inevitably fail. Consider that the efforts revealed in the CRU emails to manage the peer reviewed literature went well beyond efforts to prevent so-called "skeptical" papers from being published, but included a focus on papers that fully accepted a human influence on climate, but which offered views that differed in some degree (e.g., here) from those preferred by the activist scientists. The emails reveal activist scientists busy extolling the virtues of peer review to journalists and the public, while at the same time they were busy behind the scenes working to corrupt the peer review process in a way that favored their views on the science and politics of climate change. Here we have a case study in the politicization of climate science by climate scientists.

The clique of activist scientists sees absolutely nothing wrong in what they are doing -- they are after all justifying their actions in terms of "truth" in support of the greater good. And the issue is made even more complex because those who share the political agenda of the activist scientists are ready to join their peer review coup whereas those opposed to that political agenda are happy to try to exploit for political gain the scientists' ethical lapses and failure to appreciate their role in politicizing climate science. So much of the discussion gets wrapped up in these distractions, rather than the issue of the integrity of climate science.

The sustainability of climate science depends upon our ability to distinguish the health of the scientific enterprise from the politics of climate change. The need to respond to climate change (which I support) does not justify sacrificing standards of scientific integrity for political ends. In fact, as the events of the past week show, when standards of scientific integrity are compromised, the political consequences can be double edged."


Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Redefining Peer Review

 

[RWatt]

I have posted the link previously. I had the pictures on my desktop. I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers. In other words biased and full of bad science. There is no peer review in the climate science industry. It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...

So estimating antarctic mass balance from a single photo of a transmission tower is a good science.

But taking measurements of the ice from satellites and radar is bad science.

I see.

The claim that it's one small group of anyone controlling what gets published is very much in error. Rodger Pielkes long rant is full of over-exaggerations and omissions, including the neat trick of describing the same incident in multiple ways so it sounds like it is multiple incidents and the neat trick of not mentioning that in one of those cases a skeptical editor had waved through a error ridden skeptical paper. If you bought what he said without question no wonder you are left thinking all the submitted papers to climate journals go through just a small group of people from the CRU. The only problem: it's not true.

Don't let me catch you in future claiming there are loads of peer reviewed papers skeptical of manmade global warming or I'll have to ask you how they all got past the gatekeepers controlling what is getting published!

Now please explain the 85 feet of ice detailed in the photographs.

I don't see 85 feet of ice in those photos. You mean I should comment on the mere assertion about 85 feet of ice made by the site iceagenow.com? The site lies about glaciers to serve it's weirdo agenda so why should I trust it about a photo?

In this topsy turvy world you prize the mere assertion of a kooky website - without any question at all - while dismissing the published peer reviewed studies of antarctic ice measurement.

 

[westwall]

I have posted the link previously. I had the pictures on my desktop. I have looked at the pal reviewed papers that skeptical science posted and they are the typical pal review papers. In other words biased and full of bad science. There is no peer review in the climate science industry. It is one small group of con artisits controlling what gets published...

So estimating antarctic mass balance from a single photo of a transmission tower is a good science.

But taking measurements of the ice from satellites and radar is bad science.

I see.

The claim that it's one small group of anyone controlling what gets published is very much in error. Rodger Pielkes long rant is full of over-exaggerations and omissions, including the neat trick of describing the same incident in multiple ways so it sounds like it is multiple incidents and the neat trick of not mentioning that in one of those cases a skeptical editor had waved through a error ridden skeptical paper. If you bought what he said without question no wonder you are left thinking all the submitted papers to climate journals go through just a small group of people from the CRU. The only problem: it's not true.

Don't let me catch you in future claiming there are loads of peer reviewed papers skeptical of manmade global warming or I'll have to ask you how they all got past the gatekeepers controlling what is getting published!

Now please explain the 85 feet of ice detailed in the photographs.

I don't see 85 feet of ice in those photos. You mean I should comment on the mere assertion about 85 feet of ice made by the site iceagenow.com? The site lies about glaciers to serve it's weirdo agenda so why should I trust it about a photo?

In this topsy turvy world you prize the mere assertion of a kooky website - without any question at all - while dismissing the published peer reviewed studies of antarctic ice measurement.

No, not at all. But you must use ALL avenues of research. Not just those that conform to your pre-concieved bias. The primary argument over climatology is the poor science used.

As far as the pictures go, the towers are 115 feet tall. There is 30 feet exposed above the ice. The diference is 85 feet. Expalin the difference.

The site doesn't lie about anything. The articles on glaciers are from government websites for the most part. So if you claim that the site is lying you are actually claiming that the governments are lying. So far the only group that has lied provably is the IPCC. Pechauri KNEW that the Himalyan glacier claim was bogus and had it published anyway.
That takes it out of the realm of a mistake and turns it into a lie. the warmists are the only ones PROVEN to have lied, and on a regular basis.

I commend you for not resorting to juvenile name calling like the rest of your clones but your claims are in error. there is no science backing up any of the claims. CO2 is going to continue to rise and the temperature is going to continue to drop for the next 20 years. When are you going to figure out that there is no correlation much less causation?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

It's worse than that West, true scientific testing begins with disproving a theory and AGW is immediately disprovable and is a textbook EPIC FAIL.

 

[westwall]

It's worse than that West, true scientific testing begins with disproving a theory and AGW is immediately disprovable and is a textbook EPIC FAIL.

That is correct. The very instant that they made the claim that GW can cause global cooling they were lost. they know it, they're just fighting tooth and nail in the vain hope that their gravy train won't end.

 

[mike beev]

Given all the hyperbole about global warming, it certainly makes it difficult for a relative newbee to know where to "get the real facts". So, I for one look for indications about what the natural world is doing, for example: old vs. recent pictures of glaciers, frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, changing patterns in animal and pest habitat or migration.
As an asside, given the possibility of reincarnation, we can all come back next time and see what happens.

 

[flacaltenn]

As a public service...

Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground

It's -102 deg F in antartica right now.

Forecast sunny and -65 degF tomorrow. Everyone in the pool... Gee what could be melting the ice? What do you need to make ice? Now back to your regular programming..

Chris:
Bookmark the link above and let me know when it's CLOSE to just freezing...

 

[ScienceRocks]

As a public service...

Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground

It's -102 deg F in antartica right now.

Forecast sunny and -65 degF tomorrow. Everyone in the pool... Gee what could be melting the ice? What do you need to make ice? Now back to your regular programming..

Chris:
Bookmark the link above and let me know when it's CLOSE to just freezing...

In a slowly warming world the ice wouldn't melt within most of Antarctica as the place is so fucking cold that it hardly snows anyways within 2/3rds of the place. Warm the world up=more moisture=more snow. So yes that is how you explain the 80 feet of snow westwall. hehehe So far your going to see advancing ice sheets in Antarctica.

Maybe the warming oceans could help warm the edges enough for melting???

 

[flacaltenn]

You do realize Chris the rate in that graph is about 7.6% over 40 years. And fairly constant. Right?

But the bigger question is -- why pick MAY? All that implies is warmer summers. Let's look at other months before we get all whacked out..

 

[ScienceRocks]

You do realize Chris the rate in that graph is about 7.6% over 40 years. And fairly constant. Right?

But the bigger question is -- why pick MAY? All that implies is warmer summers. Let's look at other months before we get all whacked out..

Your right...Since 1979 the rate of change has been constant. Melting of course, but constant. I'd say if we don't get a number one within the next 2 years the trend will become flatter too. Hell if it don't get a 1 or 2 this year it sure as hell won't equal a increase at all.

 

[westwall]

As a public service...

Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground

It's -102 deg F in antartica right now.

Forecast sunny and -65 degF tomorrow. Everyone in the pool... Gee what could be melting the ice? What do you need to make ice? Now back to your regular programming..

Chris:
Bookmark the link above and let me know when it's CLOSE to just freezing...

In a slowly warming world the ice wouldn't melt within most of Antarctica as the place is so fucking cold that it hardly snows anyways within 2/3rds of the place. Warm the world up=more moisture=more snow. So yes that is how you explain the 80 feet of snow westwall. hehehe So far your going to see advancing ice sheets in Antarctica.

Maybe the warming oceans could help warm the edges enough for melting???

No, warm temps=more watyer vapor= more RAIN, not more snow. To get snow it must first be cold. The Antarctic is classified as a desert over most of its extent. That means it gets less then 10 inches of precip per year.

 

[ScienceRocks]

As a public service...

Vostok, Antarctica Forecast : Weather Underground

It's -102 deg F in antartica right now.

Forecast sunny and -65 degF tomorrow. Everyone in the pool... Gee what could be melting the ice? What do you need to make ice? Now back to your regular programming..

Chris:
Bookmark the link above and let me know when it's CLOSE to just freezing...

In a slowly warming world the ice wouldn't melt within most of Antarctica as the place is so fucking cold that it hardly snows anyways within 2/3rds of the place. Warm the world up=more moisture=more snow. So yes that is how you explain the 80 feet of snow westwall. hehehe So far your going to see advancing ice sheets in Antarctica.

Maybe the warming oceans could help warm the edges enough for melting???

No, warm temps=more watyer vapor= more RAIN, not more snow. To get snow it must first be cold. The Antarctic is classified as a desert over most of its extent. That means it gets less then 10 inches of precip per year.

No, a warmer temperature=more moisture. If the air is -40c it only needs .1 g/kg to get to saturation, but as you raise the temperature to -10 it increases to 2 g/kg(grams/kilogram) to get to saturation. Which means as you warm the air=more moisture. The place is a desert because there is no moisture in the air. That is a fact. In you if you raised the temperature to 0c you would have 5 gram/kg. This is why a warm tropical place holds a shit load of moisture and can get a lot of rain. I've been tracking meteorology my whole life so I have a idea what I'm talking about.

Also as the avg temperature increases the place would be able to hold more moisture within the Atmosphere=more snow. All you need to have is for the temperature at all levels to be below freezing to have it as snow and not rain. Pretty simple really. Most rainfall within the mid to high latitudes start as snow in a process called the bergeron process(theory) of precipitation.

.1g/kg is very little moisture and explains why it is a desert. The tropics that get to 25-30c normally can "hold" 20-26.5 g/km just to get to saturation.

It takes a lot more then just simple saturation to form precipitation as the normal cloud droplet is far to light to fall from the cloud. The droplet needs to grow=have the moisture to grow in size. My area normally has 5 to 10 g/kg to get to saturation and has 30-36 inches a year of rainfall, but some area's around the mountains where the moisture is forced to raise and condense out can get much more then that, but compared to how fast it can come down within the tropics that is because they have even more moisture as I pointed out above 20-26.5 g/km for 25 to 30c.

Of course saturation normally doesn't happen right at the surface(fog is a exception), but as the air rises and cools to its dew point(point where saturation occurs). Then you can form the clouds and then if you have enough moisture the precipitation.

 

[westwall]

In a slowly warming world the ice wouldn't melt within most of Antarctica as the place is so fucking cold that it hardly snows anyways within 2/3rds of the place. Warm the world up=more moisture=more snow. So yes that is how you explain the 80 feet of snow westwall. hehehe So far your going to see advancing ice sheets in Antarctica.

Maybe the warming oceans could help warm the edges enough for melting???

No, warm temps=more watyer vapor= more RAIN, not more snow. To get snow it must first be cold. The Antarctic is classified as a desert over most of its extent. That means it gets less then 10 inches of precip per year.

No, a warmer temperature=more moisture. If the air is -40c it only needs .1 g/kg to get to saturation, but as you raise the temperature to -10 it increases to 2 g/kg(grams/kilogram) to get to saturation. Which means as you warm the air=more moisture. The place is a desert because there is no moisture in the air. That is a fact. In you if you raised the temperature to 0c you would have 5 gram/kg. This is why a warm tropical place holds a shit load of moisture and can get a lot of rain. I've been tracking meteorology my whole life so I have a idea what I'm talking about.

Also as the avg temperature increases the place would be able to hold more moisture within the Atmosphere=more snow. All you need to have is for the temperature at all levels to be below freezing to have it as snow and not rain. Pretty simple really. Most rainfall within the mid to high latitudes start as snow in a process called the bergeron process(theory) of precipitation.

.1g/kg is very little moisture and explains why it is a desert. The tropics that get to 25-30c normally can "hold" 20-26.5 g/km just to get to saturation.

It takes a lot more then just simple saturation to form precipitation as the normal cloud droplet is far to light to fall from the cloud. The droplet needs to grow=have the moisture to grow in size. My area normally has 5 to 10 g/kg to get to saturation and has 30-36 inches a year of rainfall, but some area's around the mountains where the moisture is forced to raise and condense out can get much more then that, but compared to how fast it can come down within the tropics that is because they have even more moisture as I pointed out above 20-26.5 g/km for 25 to 30c.

Of course saturation normally doesn't happen right at the surface(fog is a exception), but as the air rises and cools to its dew point(point where saturation occurs). Then you can form the clouds and then if you have enough moisture the precipitation.

Everything you say is correct. But, it still requires cold to make snow. Increased water vapor does not equal less heat. The equatorial region is awash in mild rainstorms year round do to the temperature which as you say increases the moisture content of the air.

Yes you get snow on the peaks like Kilimanjaro and Meru but that's do to the adiabatic lapse rate.

 

[Chris]

 

[westwall]

Try this one...