Why Climate Change Won't Matter in 20 Years

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Most sources I can find are saying that the summer of 13 was almost neutral or at best a very weak lamina comming off a moderate el Nino your own charts support that as well. I still say heavy icebreaker activity has a singnifcant effect.

What are your sources?

What is the evidence that supports your icebreaker hypothesis?

[newhaul]

The current elnino period started approx June of 2014 and is still holding on . So more than 1.5 years to my estimate 1.5 years is 18 months and the chart you provided shows 22 months so far and expected'to st untill late spring to early summer so it does qualify as multi year. IMO

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What are your sources?

What is the evidence that supports your icebreaker hypothesis?

well the Russians have 51 active ice breakers several are nuke powered. I'm searching for the article I linked to before to post it again. In the mean time here is a wiki list of icebreakers by country .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers with that many active icebreakers there has to be a negative effect on ice.

[newhaul]

The Russians are adding 14 new nuke powered icebreakers . The most powerful icebreakers yet capable of up to 3 meters of sea ice These are Russia’s new icebreakers | The Independent Barents Observer

[jackdale]

Lots of ice breakers does not support your hypothesis?

What is the correlation? What is the mechanism?

Wind blowing the ice north has both. And NSIDC has reached that conclusion. You might present you hypothesis to them and get some funding.

[newhaul]

Jack that's an idea but I have no idea how to submit the hypothesis to the appropriate people. I'm an engineer not a scientist.

Here are some general ideas on the numbers. An ice breaker escorting will leave a broken swath of sea ice approximately 300 meters wide. By about 5 km or a bit more. Multiplied by the number of ice breakers that are active on a given day . ThAt could add up to lots of now open sea that will absorb solar radiation verses the reflection that would have happened if not for the icebreakers.

[Celestialsailor]

I happened to stumble on this article and found it interesting, although I risk being called a left wing, communist, eco-nazi!
'Drastic' Antarctic melt could double global sea-level rise - BBC News

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

I happened to stumble on this article and found it interesting, although I risk being called a left wing, communist, eco-nazi!
'Drastic' Antarctic melt could double global sea-level rise - BBC News

No I wouldn't say that about you. We have been over this territory before. The snowfall elsewhere on the continental ice sheets has more than offset the meltwater released. Next I would not personally trust anything that is based on a report done by the IPCC .

[jimbunyard]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Jack that's an idea but I have no idea how to submit the hypothesis to the appropriate people. I'm an engineer not a scientist.

Here are some general ideas on the numbers. An ice breaker escorting will leave a broken swath of sea ice approximately 300 meters wide. By about 5 km or a bit more. Multiplied by the number of ice breakers that are active on a given day . ThAt could add up to lots of now open sea that will absorb solar radiation verses the reflection that would have happened if not for the icebreakers.

Was hoping to be the 3000th poster, but what the hell...

Hopefully I can put this 'worry' to rest for you.

As an engineer, I would think you would provide the numbers, but since you haven't, please allow me.

I know all 51 of the Rooskies breakers aren't nuclear but let's just assume they are. So, using a combination of your and the internets' figures:

300 yds equal .16 mile X 10 miles per hour x 24 = 38 square miles per day. 38 square miles per day x 51 icebreakers = 1958 square miles per day for the entire fleet. 365 x 1958 = 714670 square miles per year total.

That sounds like (and is) a lot, until one considers a few things:

The maximum total arctic sea ice is roughly 14-15,000,000 square miles.

The icebreakers don't operate 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

They're not all nuclear powered.

10 miles an hour is a maximum, theoretical speed in ideal conditions through 2.5 meter ice.


Now let's throw in a little geophysical data.

The first picture is an overall satellite view of the Arctic from the day before yesterday, available daily from NASA here. Rapid Response - LANCE - Arctic Mosaic - Terra 4km True Color 2016/090 (03/30) (If you're diligent and use the magnification tools on the website, sometimes you can actually see icebreaker tracks, especially if you concentrate around Alert)

The blue square is the Canadian/Alaskan side, the red square is the Ruskies. You will notice that both are heavily fractured naturally, if anything the Western Hemisphere side is even more heavily fractured than the Eastern. It's hard to believe the icebreakers could do a better job if they tried.

Also, here's a link to an animation showing ice loss and movements, based on age of the ice, since 1990. Maybe this will illustrate more clearly to you what happens to the ice in it's natural evolution through the Arctic Ocean, and why the 'icebreaker hypothesis' is not valid.

https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...nishingly-rare


And finally, directly from the NSIDC (even though I know they're in on the conspiracy), this;

Do icebreakers contribute to climate change?

When icebreakers travel through sea ice, they leave trails of open water in their wake. Dark open water does not reflect nearly as much sunlight as ice does, so sometimes people wonder if icebreakers speed up or exacerbate sea ice decline.
In summer, the passages created by icebreakers do increase local summertime melting because the ships cut through the ice and expose new areas of water to warm air. However, the melt caused by an icebreaker is small and localized. Channels created by icebreakers are quite narrow and few in number compared to natural gaps in the ice. In winter, any openings caused by icebreakers will quickly freeze over again. So, scientists do not think that icebreakers play a significant role in accelerating the decline in Arctic sea ice.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jimbunyard

Was hoping to be the 3000th poster, but what the hell...

Hopefully I can put this 'worry' to rest for you.

(helping you towards 3000)

Informative post, Jim, but the sort of skeptic/denier arguments we're getting in this thread aren't about finding out the truth, they're simply about sustaining the illusion that the science behind the IPCC (or NASA or NOAA) announcements isn't reliable enough to take seriously.

NASA, NOAA, IPCC - you've seen how the findings from these agencies/committees have been dismissed by unproven assertions of ... conspiracy, basically. Or incompetence or careerism at a minimum. All of these faults and biases that the skeptics/deniers or the industry lobbies that back them are entirely free of, apparently.

Yet most of our deniers/skeptics have each been personally imbued with the wisdom and scientific acumen to be able to skim their fave anti-AGW source (or whatever tabloid result showed up in page 1 of their google search) and confidently assert that the peanuts in that **** are more scientifically valid than the consensus around AGW (which is well north of 80% of the actual experts, but hey, they're just numbers).

The win for deniers is just to sustain the illusion of a serious debate. Trying to methodically disprove all the pet disagreements (icebreakers ) is just a neverending game of whack-a-mole, as I'm sure Jackdale can attest to.

Next up- polar bears are wrecking their own environment by swimming and jumping on ice floes, which hastens the breakup.

[Kenomac]

Jack and other GW Zealots,

Who decided that pre industrial CO2 levels and climate temps were ideal and why? Personally, and I also speak for all plant life... I prefer a warmer climate and my plant buddies prefer higher CO2 levels.

Don't we get a vote in this debate?

Ken

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

...and you think GW is a conspiracy?

Actually I was referring to the successful environmentally friendly car/machines that have been invented..
To me GW is merely hilarious.. corporate created and unlikely to be resolved.. no one wants to lose their profits nor invest the bucks and no Government is in power long enough to commit to anything other than knee jerk politically expedient short term reactions.. while the chattering class blather on impotently.
The science is known and has been throughout my lifetime but still they continue for short term gains..
Each arguing their own agenda.. myself I could not care less.. I'll be fertiliser long before Doomsday...

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by newhaul

well the Russians have 51 active ice breakers several are nuke powered. I'm searching for the article I linked to before to post it again. In the mean time here is a wiki list of icebreakers by country .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_icebreakers with that many active icebreakers there has to be a negative effect on ice.

Oil exploration trumps ice any day.

[sailorboy1]

Some of you need something real to do.

[Kenomac]

Originally Posted by sailorboy1

Some of you need something real to do.

Like grab post 3000!