EverCurious
Gold Member
Semi related mental blob (I am no expert on global climate modeling, though I dare say I might have more of a handle than some whom are posting in this thread heh) That said, and to sort out a question that seems to be brought up, I would submit the following.
Ice will accumulate first around a body (like say a land mass, though I use stones) I occasionally get bored and make ice art in the driveway (which has a most unfortunate downward slope that collects water /right/ at my front porch) By laying down a stone in the center of the puddle I can create an ice island (an Antarctica if you would) if I do not leave in a stone however, the puddle does the 'natural' thing, which is to freeze inward from shallow to deep based on the temperature of the water. The water temp is inherent upon the air temp, but it is not the deciding factor, the deciding factor is water temp. In the case of the globe we are talking about moving water which requires a much lower temp to even freeze, if it can at all because ice is a beautiful insulator (water in itself is.) To example this phenom, Anchorage's port is a boon because it is deep enough and has a enough outflow from rivers to continue movement thus prevent freezing; we get pan ice, easily broken pan ice, from oct/nov through mar/may and thus our port is able to run year round and has /never/ frozen over to the point of inaccessibility - (Thank God for the state, for sure the city, would likely die.) So too is Russia's Northern Sea Route been a boon for cost (and even pollution) savings on cargo transportation. (The Ruskies have been using the NP for a good while, they've baled out a number of our cities who's ports froze up before their winter supplies were able to get in - Ruskies send their breakers, excellent machines, in to clear the way for the cargo boats. Much appreciated.)
Anyway, so as to answer why ice is thicker on the south pole, I would postulate, with the information I have, that the Antarctic's ice sheet is fed not only by the land - the proverbial still seed upon which ice crystals more easily form - but also the convectionesk processes of the gale winds that roll down there (much like an oven but in reverse. Factors of physical movement from wind, as well as wind chill, which let me tell you can be quite significant to air temp, which then effects the water temp - in fact, Alaskan's get secondary winter temps called "Wind Chill" temps because it can be down right dangerous at times.) The Arctic (NPole) is more sheltered, being water surrounded by land (a literal polar reverse of the SPole - yuk yuk yuk) Thus the ice in the N is far easier broken up, and thus more easily thawed - not having as much "pile" of snow to insulate it to a stable freezing temp. (Water works as insulation in both directions; we can use water to dissipate heat from computer components, and also we can use water/ice to maintain a frozen temp - see perma frost as a more easily investigated example of insulating to frozen state [though that does have some to do with soil/mud/rock so it is imperfect, the "perfect" example would be the N&S Poles which is a bit circular yea?] One might also explore Europa or Pluto and their liquid water/methane[?] oceans as well.)
As to the whole argument, I cannot say I am sold upon the idea of global warming being man made (especially when we consider the pointed fact noted in post 200, that these CO2 levels were reached 15m years ago, there were no fossil fuels burning then ya know) - however, most scientists do note that we're due an ice age, at which point I argue to myself that perhaps we should actually welcome these higher temperatures to stave that shit off, because you think a rise in sea levels will be devastating? No, try an ice age... Besides, my knees are going bad and I cannot say I would mind warmer temps over take my home - viva la global warming!
Ice will accumulate first around a body (like say a land mass, though I use stones) I occasionally get bored and make ice art in the driveway (which has a most unfortunate downward slope that collects water /right/ at my front porch) By laying down a stone in the center of the puddle I can create an ice island (an Antarctica if you would) if I do not leave in a stone however, the puddle does the 'natural' thing, which is to freeze inward from shallow to deep based on the temperature of the water. The water temp is inherent upon the air temp, but it is not the deciding factor, the deciding factor is water temp. In the case of the globe we are talking about moving water which requires a much lower temp to even freeze, if it can at all because ice is a beautiful insulator (water in itself is.) To example this phenom, Anchorage's port is a boon because it is deep enough and has a enough outflow from rivers to continue movement thus prevent freezing; we get pan ice, easily broken pan ice, from oct/nov through mar/may and thus our port is able to run year round and has /never/ frozen over to the point of inaccessibility - (Thank God for the state, for sure the city, would likely die.) So too is Russia's Northern Sea Route been a boon for cost (and even pollution) savings on cargo transportation. (The Ruskies have been using the NP for a good while, they've baled out a number of our cities who's ports froze up before their winter supplies were able to get in - Ruskies send their breakers, excellent machines, in to clear the way for the cargo boats. Much appreciated.)
Anyway, so as to answer why ice is thicker on the south pole, I would postulate, with the information I have, that the Antarctic's ice sheet is fed not only by the land - the proverbial still seed upon which ice crystals more easily form - but also the convectionesk processes of the gale winds that roll down there (much like an oven but in reverse. Factors of physical movement from wind, as well as wind chill, which let me tell you can be quite significant to air temp, which then effects the water temp - in fact, Alaskan's get secondary winter temps called "Wind Chill" temps because it can be down right dangerous at times.) The Arctic (NPole) is more sheltered, being water surrounded by land (a literal polar reverse of the SPole - yuk yuk yuk) Thus the ice in the N is far easier broken up, and thus more easily thawed - not having as much "pile" of snow to insulate it to a stable freezing temp. (Water works as insulation in both directions; we can use water to dissipate heat from computer components, and also we can use water/ice to maintain a frozen temp - see perma frost as a more easily investigated example of insulating to frozen state [though that does have some to do with soil/mud/rock so it is imperfect, the "perfect" example would be the N&S Poles which is a bit circular yea?] One might also explore Europa or Pluto and their liquid water/methane[?] oceans as well.)
As to the whole argument, I cannot say I am sold upon the idea of global warming being man made (especially when we consider the pointed fact noted in post 200, that these CO2 levels were reached 15m years ago, there were no fossil fuels burning then ya know) - however, most scientists do note that we're due an ice age, at which point I argue to myself that perhaps we should actually welcome these higher temperatures to stave that shit off, because you think a rise in sea levels will be devastating? No, try an ice age... Besides, my knees are going bad and I cannot say I would mind warmer temps over take my home - viva la global warming!
Last edited:
rbit wobble" and the thermometers on the balloons were just "wrong."
