From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Global Warming Blog
by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Martha Stewart with her “iceberg” cocktail and the chunk of ice it presumably came from. (Martha Stewart/Instagram)
Martha Stewart, the American home-and-hospitality retail businesswoman, television personality and writer, has been on a cruise around Greenland, where she had a chunk of ice (presumably calved from the Greenland ice sheet) brought aboard to provide ice for adult beverages.
Cue the climate alarmists, who considered such an action to be tone deaf regarding the seriousness of the climate crisis.
What, you might ask, does fishing a chunk of ice out of the ocean next to the Greenland ice cap have to do with the “climate crisis”?
Well, in some people’s minds (I know because I’ve met a few of them), ice calving off of the Greenland ice sheet is due to global warming.
Wrong.
The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are locations which are so cold for so much of the year, with enough snowfall, that come summer not all of the snowfall melts. This leads to a net accumulation of ice over the centuries and millennia. That’s what causes a “glacier” to form.
As the ice sheet deepens over the centuries, gravity starts to make the ice flow downhill, like very thick molasses. It then breaks off when it reaches the coast, floating away, and melting.
Everything I described above has nothing to do with global warming. Most scientists believe it has been going on for millions of years.
So, along comes Martha Stewart, at 82 years old just trying to enjoy life, and she gets global backlash for plucking a chunk of ice out of the ocean to cool her drink down.
What are they teaching kids in school these days???
Ice is protected.
Plucking it out of the ocean and mixing it with Scotch is therefore verboten. They will come for you.
Cheers,
Bill Johnston
http://www.bomweatch.com,.au
I meant http://www.bomwatch.com.au
You haven’t been filing flight plans for British airspace, have you?
All she needs to do is say 3 “Our Mikey’s”, 5 “Re Greta’s” and do the “Stations of the Hockey Stick” as penance
That’s a winner. Thanks for the laugh.
More than a million years ago, frosty Greenland was ice-free, its bare bedrock exposed for 280,000 years, researchers have found – why wasn’t it protected then?!
Mixing ice with a good single malt quite rightly should be verboten.
Rotgut blended Scotch is fair game.
They are coming for you! Better Watch your BOM!
Exactly!
Ice is an endangered species in climate alarmists minds (or what goes for minds).
I asked on Roy’s site – who were these alarmists and what did they say? No one knew of course. But if you drill down, it seems to be a couple of anonymous commenters on her Instagram post, in rather lighthearted style.
Did I miss your substantive point(s) about the cause(s) of calving from icebergs?
What is the substantive point, or who says otherwise?
You never have any substantive points Nick-pick.
Mindless trivia is your limit. !
After reading this thread, I would give Dr Roy a symbolic Geology Degree, and Nick a Buffalwarp Citation/
The point is: there is an underlying lie (that AGW is a real crisis) which was the raison d’etre for the criticism of Ms. Stewart whether tongue in cheek or not.
No. The point, as represented in the article, was that she was vilified for taking ice.
Why not check the msm, Nick – they hyped it
Well, Fox News hyped it, turning this ribbing into “haters”.
Haters?
This lingo is so cliche. Everything is hate where the devout are concerned
BTW it wasn’t just Fox, either
Yeah and not to worry, Wash Post blesses Martha, says it’s OK.
Whoever Martha is, good for her – and good for the Bezos News.
Perhaps her signature drink.
Mine is Grappa.
Nick is a cliche himselfm
Although I disagree with almost everything he writes, I admire Nick’s energy and his willingness to absorb abuse in defense of his beliefs.
This is classic Nick.
Pick an irrelevant side issue, whine about it incessantly.
It’s not a side issue. The title of the post is
“Martha Stewart Exposes the Ignorance of Climate Alarmists”
And not a single “Alarmist” is named, nor their ignorance exposed. All we have is some ribbing on her fan site.
““I generally love Martha and the excesses of her life because she’s about beautiful gardens, homes, and food, but wealthy white people drinking their iceberg cocktails while the planet is in flames is a bit tone-deaf,””
LOL, poor Nick.
If that isn’t an alarmist comment.. what is.
Thanks for keeping this thread alive with your incessant child-minded nick-picking 🙂
Great hilarity for all !
ps.. Your ignorance and alarmism IS being exposed, Nick !!
Define ‘hate’.
Beyond the subjective.
Fox News used the term, not me. To describe a couple of Martha’s 1.9 million followers who said “we love you, but…”
“Fox News”
In other words the MSM, quite why you fixate on one outlet seems more than partisan to me.
Now, let us pray…
““Regardless,
we understand
this can appear insensitive to the climate crisis
and therefore,
we will be suspending this practice with immediate effect on all ships
in the Swan Hellenic fleet,”
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/martha-stewart-cocktail-backlash_n_64ef0c71e4b0fe066b17a606
The article cites three Instagram comments, at least two of which are flagrantly tongue-in-cheek. This is nothing more than rage bait, which you’ve all fallen hook, line, and sinker for.
The msm broadcast it – across the spectrum
I’m not experiencing rage, only some small degree of hilarity.
What a non story.
Sadly we live in a world where media outlets get views by making people angry. Whatever your political brand, there is a 24 hours new network spewing outrage tailored just for you. WUWT seems to like to propagate the conservative brand of outrage.
It’s called the MSM and it is trying to get its ducks in a row
You are an idiot, AlanJ
We are LAUGHING that anyone could be so incredibly stupid as to have any issue at all for using Greenland ice in their beverage.
And don’t forget Roy’s real point – that every time the MSM goes into a panic because of the calving of a large iceberg (that may spend SEVERAL YEARS floating around in the supposedly boiling waters around Antarctica before melting when the currents finally managed to get it more northward) it’s because they think it’s a bad thing, like it’s melting when actually it’s surplus ice. And why are the news outlets triggered by the error? Because scientists who should know better use the calving, and frankly speaking, anything in the news, to harp about the end of the world from a measly few extra degrees.
The Huffington Post article someone linked has quotes from scientists explaining why it’s not a big deal. The MSM and the scientists are not doing the things you claim they are doing. Why do you choose to believe things that are not true? Do you feel that the quality of your life is improved by the constant outrage you feel over lies you are being fed?
“What a non story.”
Yes, it is. So why is it on Roy’s site, and now WUWT? It is, as AlanJ sais, rage bait. They don’t feel any need to say who they should be enraged at, or why.
So why is it on Roy’s site, and now WUWT?
To show the ridicule of climate alarmism. Some thing for us to giggle at while you try and take it seriously.
But there is no climate alarmism here. Just some joshing on her fan site.
““I generally love Martha and the excesses of her life because she’s about beautiful gardens, homes, and food, but wealthy white people drinking their iceberg cocktails while the planet is in flames is a bit tone-deaf,””
Nah.. no alarmism at all.
You are being hilarious in exposing your Nick-picking today..
Well, Nick-pick is very obviously in mental lather about it !
Because we watch the ignorance comes out easily, I deal with them for years and even make utter fools of them because they are parrots and quote and post masters who doesn’t understand what they post as they rarely write in their own words about anything.
Why are you going on and on and on about it surely you have better things to do than wail over a short post……
Including you by the sound
Which is why the tour operator cancelled the practice. In other words, you have no idea what your talking about. It’s been everywhere across all media, not just an instagram post
Yes, once people start getting outraged at the imaginary backlash to the thing that barely happened it gains traction and gets spread all over sites like this one and the lust for outrage is fed and snowballs. It’s all very incredibly stupid, but people gobble it up.
“Stupid” is failing to see the point of the article. It isn’t a difficult one.
Yep, AlanJ.. YOUR outrage is hilarious. !!
You are an incredibly stupid person!
Look at you go, boy !!
Incorrect. This is not “nothing more than rage bait.” But for the lie that there is a “climate crisis”/AGW crisis, no such comments would have been made.
Thus, the article makes an excellent point: people are speaking out of ignorance or worse (intentionally promoting a lie about human CO2 emissions to make money from “renewables” and or to gain power over people).
It’s the very definition of rage bait. Martha Stewart (we’ve already entered the realm of indefatigable irrelevancy about which no one should care in the slightest) posted a photo on instagram and a tiny handful of her followers made a sarcastic joke, and conservatives got mad. People whose job it is to make money off of making conservatives mad (Fox News, CNN, etc.) realize the opportunity to make money off of credulous angry conservatives and ran with it, and here we are.
”… her followers made a sarcastic joke…”
And you still don’t get it.
Certainly got AlanJ all in a mental rage.
Lok at him go.
It’s HILARIOUS. !!
“ (we’ve already entered the realm of indefatigable irrelevancy about which no one should care in the slightest)”
A very apt description of your posts, AlanJ.
And you are still whining about it…. LOL.
“can appear insensitive to the climate crisis” OMG, they offended the narrative!
I’m not interested in who used the term, other than you bringing it up, I’m interested in an objective definition.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Avn2nT16FA
As good as any. 🙂
Surely the haters are those who peddle CO2 is a terrible scourge, heat pumps are better than gas boilers, battery cars are better than ICE vehicles, wind & solar power is cheaper and more reliable than fossil fuel / nuclear power, eating bugs & lab meat is better than natural meat? These are the rantings of people who hate their fellow humans, surely?
Must be lying, we know you don’t follow FoxNews … you must have got it from Pravda or CNN.
You mean mindless nit-picking twerps like you, hey Nick. !
Naturally the fake ID is being absurd. There’s nothing “lighthearted” about this.
Fans Are Furious With Martha Stewart For The ‘Disrespectful’ Cocktail She Made On Vacation (yahoo.com)
Fans? What fans? Seems to be a lot of irrelevant trolls, much like the so-called Nick Stokes.
You only quote a Yahoo beat-up, not what they actually said.
Mr. Stokes: And you told us it was only the hate ginners at FOX News, but Yahoo isn’t FOX, is it? You are now at the point where you don’t read your own posts. Better let your shadow AlanJ take this one, he doesn’t care what he says from one post to the next.
The point being that the global warmunists have constantly hyped for decades that ice calving from continental land masses – including Greenland and Antarctica – is due to melting ice, when the exact precise opposite is the case, as dictated by physics. It all flows down hill, and the more of “it” (liquid water or ice) there is uphill or upstream, the faster the flow at the downstream end – the sea.
“Keep the ice in the ocean!” The Daily Mail has a list of alarmist comments.
– – – – – – – – –
Martha Stewart responds to fan backlash after she was slammed over using iceberg ice for cocktail: ‘Experts say it’s no big deal’The 82-year-old lifestyle guru posted about her trip from Iceland to Greenland
‘We actually captured a small iceberg for our cocktails,’ Stewart said in a post
Her post sparked backlash, with fans describing it as ‘dystopian’ and ‘bleak’
Experts told The Washington Post that her actions had no environmental impact
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-12463779/Martha-Stewart-backlash-iceberg-ice-cocktail.html
Nick has a point. The article lacked quotes. Alarmists making flippant quips is not newsworthy. For all we know they could have been satirising themselves.
But isn’t she helping to keep sea level down – if you believe in the faith?
Either way, they’re as mad as a box of frogs
Correct, humanity did not progress over the last 200 years with people like this in charge
_________________________________________________________________________
It then follows that any ice gain or ice loss in Greenland and Antarctica is a function of snow that fell centuries and millennia ago and not some recent temperature change of one degree.
Right. If glaciers didn’t calve and melt, we would be in an ice age. That’s catastrophic climate change for ya!
“Sometimes the first duty of intelligent men is the restatement of the obvious” –
George Orwell.
We are in an 11,700 year interglacial period named the Holocene between glacial periods within an ice age name the Quaternary Glaciation. The glacial periods have usually lasted around 90,000 years and the interglacial periods have usually lasted about 10,000 years for a cycle of about 100,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
It is always going to be tough to defeat weaponised ignorance. Make mine a double please Martha.
Don’t scrimp; trebles all round!
It looks like the cruise line Martha used is ducking for cover over the Greenland ice used in Martha’s drink:
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cruise-line-pulls-ice-experience-124832569.html
Cruise Line Pulls Ice Experience Following Martha Stewart Photo Backlash
Lee Moran
Wed, August 30, 2023 at 7:48 AM CDT”
Such cowards! 🙂
It is the modern way of doing business – when cancel culture rears it’s ugly head you run away, backtrack, offer a snivelling and grovelling apology or expect a mob with pitchforks and torches baying for blood.
when cancel culture rears it’s ugly head…
When danger reared it’s ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled. (“I never!”)
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out. {“You’re lying!”)
Swiftly taking to his feet,
He beat a very brave retreat.
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
(Monty Python – Brave Sir Robin)
I wonder if Dylan Mulvaney could sink a cruise line.
He can sink even things that are… lite
😂😜😎
I saw an article about a new beer company with an initial product they call “Ultra Right”.
They advertise themselves as being 100% non-woke.
For a new product, they don’t seem to be doing to badly.
I’m positive that the cruise line, Swan Hellenic, uses cruise ships equipped with Diesel engines. I expect that they will immediately ban their use and switch to sail power once they realize that their entire business plan appears “insensitive” with future Diesel engine use.
Yet according to Nick and Alan a grand total of nobody has expressed any outrage. They’ve managed to create an entire substring pushing this line.
A massive Streisand moment for them 🙂
Hilarious. 🙂
so she cant fold fitted sheets, has dubious financial dealings, and cocks a snoot at the Goreists. I like her more and more.
and she doesn’t look bad for 82!
The worse thing that seems to be missed, the drink appears to be a White Russian.
Is that any worse than port and lemon? Really?
She once said, as a roaster on the roast of Snoop Dog, that there were a bunch of ganstga rappers on stage but it was she that spent maore time in prison then all of the combined. Now that was funny.
Good to see that you must have dodged this bullet.
re: ‘has dubious financial dealings”
Martha Stuart was convicted of one count of conspiracy (with her broker), two counts of making false statements (to the FBI. Do not lie to the FBI. Better yet, do not talk to the FBI.) and one count of obstruction of agency proceedings.
It stems from Stewart and her broker (Bacanovic) having claimed they had a prior agreement to sell the stock when its price fell below $60 per share, but the government contended that was a cover story concocted at the last minute. Prosecutors said Bacanovic knew that ImClone CEO Sam Waksal and his family were dumping their own holdings and immediately told Stewart to sell.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/law-jan-june04-stewart_03-05
Exactly!
The anti-science doofus global warmunists believe that ice leaving the land to enter the sea proves the ice is melting … the exact, precise, opposite of the physics that governs ice flow, and water flow – it all flows down hill. If ice is flowing at a higher rate into the sea, it can only be due to there being more mass of ice uphill (or upstream, if you will). Just like a river, when the watershed receives extra rain, or extra snow cover, the river flows faster. When the watershed has less water, snow or ice in it, it flows slower.
Ice is the same as liquid water, only with a far higher viscosity making it flow far slower than liquid water.
Naturally produced ice can never be used. Only ice artificially produced by machines that spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can properly be used to cool adult beverages.
I have actually stirred drinks with icicles harvested from my roof. How green is that?
If Ice were truly melting, the edge if the ice would be well up into the valley that had been caused by the glacier and only cold water would be pouring into the ocean, like happened in Glacier Bay in the late 1800’s, before global warming.
Obviously ice can melt while grounded with the liquid running off into the ocean, but the ice can also slide off into the ocean and then melt afterward.
Obviously, but ice sliding off the edge into the ocean does not prove warming like ice melting back into the hill and water flowing into the ocean does.
Ice sliding into the sea is consistent with warming. Warming disintegrates buttresses allowing glaciers to into the sea without a natural block. Warming also causes increased basal water accumulation allowing glaciers to slide faster into the sea.
Ice sliding into the sea is consistent with NORMAL !
It could also be because 1) there is more melt water lubricating basal interface and 2) less buttressing at the grounding line.
The warmunists bring up the lubication … but it’s bullshit.
For one thing, the ice that melts due to global warming could only melt on the surface, and somehow that liquid water would infiltrate all the way down through kilometers of thoroughly frozen and compacted ice. Which is impossible.
Secondly, the notion that surface friction matters to glacial ice movement velocity when the land mass friction infinitely overcomes any such “lubrication” is ludicrous. This ice moves across mountains, canyons, and plateaus which of course vary in elevation by hundreds if not thousands of feet – that is the friction that counts. Glaciers do indeed grind down and powderize solid rock, as anyone knows who has any background in geology, but that is an extraordinarily slow and violent process. See Yosemite. Or any mountain valley carved out by glaciers. That is not a case of glaciers zipping along on a sheet of water.
What evidence eliminates those as possibilities? Can you post a link to a few peer reviewed publications documenting it?
It’s physics and geology. Thousands of papers have been written about how glaciers work. Look it up, or try taking a college level course in geology
If there are thousands of papers eliminating the possibility of a lowering of the friction coefficient then it should be easy to post say 10 of them.
Dude – I am not your geology professor. Take a college level course in geology, try not to fail it, and then come back and try to refute hundreds of years of research and learning. Also look up “gravity”. You are just an ignorant troll. You have to do better than that.
It is a simple request. It either exists or it doesn’t. If you are unable or unwilling to provide it then I have no choice but to dismiss your claim.
Explain to us how surface meltwater moves through thousands of meters of ice to then lubricate glacial ice that is below the freezing point of water. C’mon, you can do it.
Crevasse See.[Colgan et al. 2016] [Gilbert et al. 2020] [Vaughn et al. 2012] [Scambos et al. 2017] [Bell et al. 2017] [Benn et al. 2007] [Schmidt et al. 2023] [Todd et al. 2018] [Catania et al. 2019] [McGrath et al. 2012], etc. for details.
Crevasses do not penetrate anywhere near to the bottom of kilometer thick ice masses. The idiots who point to that are talking only about surficial areas of very small glaciers on individual mountains, and they only penetrate at most a couple of hundred feet, or far less.
Ice is a plastic solid. As the depth of the ice increases, the pressure increases accordingly at the rate of 62.4 pounds per foot of depth. Going down one kilometer of ice thickness (the ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica are thicker than that), the pressure per square inch within the ice at one kilometer depth would be 3,280 ft times 62.4 pounds per foot, or pounds per cubic foot, 204,672 pcf, or in pounds per square inch, 1,421 psi. The ice at that pressure, and at far lower pressures, behaves as a plastic mass that flows like water with a very high viscosity. No open continuous crevasse can possibly exist within the ice mass at that pressure.
While basal crevasses do exist I was actually referring to surface crevasses which collect the meltwater allowing it to hydrofrack its way down to the basal layer. You can see my post here for my details. Again…I’m being moderated so you may not be able to see it yet.
Basal melting. See [Pritchard et al. 2012] [Davis et al. 2023] [Flexas et al. 2022] [Bindschadler et al. 2017] [Shean et al. 2019 [Young et al. 2022] [Washam et al. 2019] [Larter 2022] [Karlsson et al. 2021] [Wiskandt et al. 2023], etc. for details.
Hey bdgwx, a bit of logic for you to consider. A river just flows in a channel of of its valley. Not the whole valley. So there is no lubrication over a whole glacial valley.
That’s not unlike how a glacier moves in general. But unlike free flowing water glaciers buttress ice outside the main channel. If the buttressing moves then ice above the buttress moves to lower its gravitational potential energy. Glacier dynamics is complex; perhaps more so than river flow dynamics.
”But unlike free flowing water glaciers buttress ice outside the main channel.”
Now your just contradicting yourself. So there is no lubrication of the buttress ice then is there.
Pressure lowers the melting point of ice. And, ice acts as an insulator. So, if there happens to be a high geothermal gradient, water can melt at the bedrock interface. However, I believe it is the exception rather than the rule.
Yeah. I believe crevasses are the more important factor. In addition to allowing melt water to reach the surface in some cases they also fracture and destabilize the glacier.
Crevasses cannot exist at the bottom of continental sized ice glaciers that are kilometers thick. Thinking that is a thing is just plain ignorance of how ice behaves.
Although basal crevasses do exist we’re actually focused on the surface crevasses that collect meltwater. The meltwater collects into these crevasses (or moulins) and forces its way down to the bedrock in a process called hydrofracking [Hoffman et al. 2018].[Chandler & Hubbard 2023] [Tedesco et al. 2013] [Palmer et al. 2013] [Pollard et al. 2015] [Selmes et al. 2013] [Phillips et al. 2010] [Banwell et al. 2016] [Covington et al. 2020] [Chu 2013]
Image Courtesy of CIRES
You mean like this ?
Okay, don’t take my head off over this. I’m not a scientist or engineer and barely got an English degree. But I just bought Fallen Angels on the recommendation of someone at this site, and just yesterday read the following in it: “[The ice] is easily a mile thick over Ontario. Ice melts under pressure. There’s actually a thin film of pressurized water underneath the ice. Acts like a lubricant. The bottom layers of the ice are less rigid than the upper layers, so they crack and slide along sheer planes. The top layers usually raft on the bottom layers…” It’s fiction, not a textbook, but pressure produces heat? Does the weight of the ice increase the pressure enough to produce enough heat to melt enough ice to move a glacier? I’m acknowledging that it wouldn’t melt due to global warming because it’s so far beneath the surface, but does melting happen from the internal pressure under a mile of ice? The book quote makes it sound like there’s a layer of ice above and below the melt zone, but wouldn’t that zone be at the very bottom of the ice mass where the pressure is greatest?
Not taking your head off, just explaining. The “lubricant” thesis is ridiculous. In a theoretical situation where you have a perfectly flat surface of earth or rock, covered by an ice sheet, with no terrain variation involved (i.e., there is no elevation change “downhill” either on a micro scale measured in inches or feet, or on a macro scale involving hundreds to thousands of feet), then there could be a lubrication factor that works to significantly speed glacial movement.
But that is not the real world, quite literally.
Everyone familiar with geology and how glaciers have worked over the thousands to hundreds of thousands of years of the last 2.6 MY of the glaciation/interglacial eras knows that glaciers literally move mountains and create vast U-shaped canyons in mountainous areas, as well as smaller features like cirques, by moving tens of millions to hundreds of millions of tons of rock to create those features. Even more when dealing with the continental ice sheets that at one time covered more than half of north America, leaving behind thick layers of rocky debris (“moraines”) to thick layers of rock flour topsoil that is typical of the upper midwest.
So if there was this well greased sheet of ice flowing like a race horse with all that water lubrication, then where did all that excavated material come from, and how did it end up at the southerly margins of the great ice sheets? The answer is, it can’t. The fact that solid rock is ground away proves that there is effectively zero lubrication effect.
You can see it even on one of the existing glaciers flowing down mountains that obviously have picked up a heavy load of rocks, gravel, and finely ground silt that comes from up stream. It looks blackened.
The fact that mountains and continental shields are ground down proves that the ice sheets are not being greased but are directly contacting the earth surface.
In the world of machines with moving or rotating parts, lubricant is used to prevent material on material (such as metal on metal) contact. Lube oil is frequently inspected and/or tested to look for solid particles, and if there are a significant number of such particles in the oil, then the most likely explanation is that the lube oil system failed to operate as designed and allowed metal on metal contact. In internal combustion engines, this is called “making metal”, which is a very bad thing. Left untreated, the internals of the machine will eventually seize up completely.
So if “making metal” is proof of lubrication system failure in a machine (either the oil itself fails, or the oil delivery system fails), what do you think “making rocks” or “making soil” in a glacier is evidence of? I’ll tell you – direct contact is taking place.
Thank you. That explanation makes sense; so does another reply you posted below it: “How does liquid water exist at the interface between an ice sheet thousands of meters thick, and a land surface that has been kept at or below freezing for thousands of years, being insulated from whatever temperature the atmosphere happens to be (which is below 0 deg virtually 100% of the time). Where does all that liquid water come from?”
The more I think about it the less sense the novelist’s idea makes, but to my credit I didn’t imagine that there was a layer of water between the ice and earth that the glacier was effectively floating over. I think the novelist was referring to liquid water between two sheets of ice, but that doesn’t make sense, either: Why would an intermediate depth of ice be under enough pressure to liquify it if everything below that remained solid ice?
Before retirement I had at least the basics of a few aircraft systems crammed briefly into my brain. That information is mostly gone now, but I know that the oil systems use magnetic chip detectors to collect metal shavings and particles from scavenged oil, and when there’s enough to close a circuit it generates a caution light in the cockpit. That can be a sign of impending engine failure, depending on how fast things are disintegrating. Fortunately I never saw one in real life: Maintenance inspects the detectors at regular intervals to look for particles. Anyway, it’s a good analogy for the results of ice creeping over the earth.
How does liquid water exist at the interface between an ice sheet thousands of meters thick, and a land surface that has been kept at or below freezing for thousands of years, being insulated from whatever temperature the atmosphere happens to be (which is below 0 deg virtually 100% of the time).
Where does all that liquid water come from?
Frictional heat, geothermal gradient, and a higher melting point resulting from high pressures.
Nope – if there is frictional heat, that means that the ice is directly contacting the terrain underneath, by the definition of what lubricants are and do (prevent surface to surface contact). So no frictional heat or enhancement to motion can be the effect on the ice. That would be the equivalent in mechanics of materials of a perpetual motion machine.
The average atmospheric surface temperature of the ice pack in Greenland is minus 31.4 deg C. The mass of the ice therefore would have a temperature that on average is equal to that, or less (solar energy input is far less in the Arctic than it is in the tropics).
Geothermal heat generation cannot overcome the internal temperature of the ice sheet. Meaning that minus 31.4 deg C is the starting point for the ice sheet temperature, which is the warmest it can be absent geothermal heat generation. Geothermal energy as measured in mw/m2 would have to be high enough to raise the temperature of the ice from minus 31 deg C to 0 deg C and then add additional energy to do the phase conversion from solid to liquid
The specific heat content of ice is 2 KW/kg.
The thermal conductivity of ice is 2.2 W/meter squared per deg K.
Per NASA data, the heat flux generated from geothermal activity in Greenland is only 50 to 72 milliwatts per square meter, or 0.05-0.072 Watts per meter squared. Meaning that whatever heat energy that gets conducted into the bottom of the glacial ice boundary layer is vastly smaller (i.e, it is inconsequential) compared to the rate that heat energy gets carried away from the boundary layer into the massive ice pack above that boundary layer.
This is equivalent to tossing a gallon per minute of water into a tub with a hole in it that leaks it back out at the rate of 14-20 gallons per minute. The “gazoutas” greatly exceed the “gazintas”. Engineers call this the continuity equation, and the conservation of energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, only transformed into a phase change.
Whatever geothermal heating is applied to the bottom of the ice is instantly carried away from the boundary layer into what is effectively a heat sink of infinite capacity, meaning the boundary layer never heats up above its temperature that is way below freezing.
Basal melting and crevasses. See my posts here and here for examples of references. Note that as of the time of this post my other posts are in moderation likely due to the number citations I included in each.
While I agree with you generally, you are ignoring, 1) the raising of melting point due to pressure and, 2) leakage of heat from below (the lithosphere).
Also when a glacier goes over a ridge it fractures and any liquid water can percolate down to the base.
At least, so my degree course in geology said.
There is no substantial raising of the freezing point of ice at any conceivable pressure in the ice pack. Just look at a triple point diagram. At any conceivable ice pressure (the maximum thickness of ice in Greenland is 3 km), the freezing point is a constant 0 deg C.
There is very little fracturing that takes place at the bottom of the ice pack and under the pressures of km-thick ice such it quickly compresses and reforms plastically. Even rock will fold and bend without fracturing under significant pressures deep within the Earth’s rust. Ice is far more plastic than any rock.
Ice that is at the bottom of the edge of a glacier, which we’re talking about meters of thickness at the margin, not kilometers of ice, behaves mechanically very differently from ice that is at the bottom of a 2-3 km thick ice pack due to the pressures involved (around 1,000 to 2,000 psi). It is equivalent to the pressure of the ocean at a depth of 3-6 km underwater. Under those pressures ice is very plastic, conforming to the land surface underneath. It is also not moving very rapidly – on average about 25 cm/day in the Greenland ice pack.
Duane, please don’t bring physics or indeed any science into the climate debate, the alarmists don’t really do science, it makes their brain hurt
Story tip
Night Shift Double Whammy
“ULEZ charges overnight workers twice on same shift, Sadiq Khan warned
The Night Time Industries Association (NTIA) is demanding that Khan do something to “rectify this assault on night-time workers”. NTIA, which represents businesses that operate between 6pm and 6am, estimates that nearly 40,000 workers who work past midnight may have to pay the ULEZ charge to get to and from work.
It could mean affected workers would be charged £25 to commute to work by car. Nighttime workers can be more reliant on cars to travel to and from work, because public transport services are reduced after midnight.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1807743/ULEZ-charges-overmight-workers-twice
Yes, it’s all been thought through. The little people do not matter.
Addendum:
“Is ULEZ a money-making scheme for Sadiq Khan?
Yes, it is purely for profit 97%
No, clean air needs to be a priority 3%
Don’t know 0%
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1807743/ULEZ-charges-overmight-workers-twice
97%…..
A policy built on lies, deceit and dodgy stats – isn’t that tyranny?
Pretty much
The fools really have too much time on their hands.
I keep stories about how the Peterman glacier adn others in Greenland are melting away due to climate change and yet!
Fossil Fuels Are To Blame | Real Climate Science
Even in the year of greatest modern melting, 2012, more ice accumulated than melted. Last year far more accumulated than melted. We are talking 40 gigatons; and a gigaton is a billion tons. That much of an excess is left over AFTER the melting. Therefore 40 billion tons of ice must break off the edge of Greenland just to achieve an equilibrium.
.
So sorry about the above interruption — I thought I could get the EXCELLENT graph to publish here. Then, when I attempted to delete that comment, I received the following 2 error messages:
That’s just the surface mass balance (SMB). The full mass balance is MB = SMB – D – BMB. [Mankoff et al. 2021]
It looks like the total mass balance for Greenland in 2012 was between -275 and -450 Gt in 2012. [Otosaka et al. 2023] [Mankoff et al. 2021] [Simonsen et al. 2021] [Mouginot et al. 2019]
We don’t have estimates for 2022 yet, but the mid 2021 to mid 2022 estimate is -115 Gt. [Moon et al. 2022]
Greenland SMB was more negative in the 1930s and around 2000
Yeah, back when it was really hot.
And of course, the numbers are piddlingly small amounts, that don’t even show up in sea level change or total Ice mass.
re: “What are they teaching kids in school these days???”
.
Here’s where we run risks with future (and present even) societies/generations: “Those Who Can Make You Believe Absurdities Can Make You Commit Atrocities“.
There’s the risk. And we are pretty much on the way there with (1) ‘Global Warming/Climate Change’ and (2) the mounting pressure to ‘mask up/lock down’ on account of new
Covid-19Election Year-a-cron variant.Pretty good for 82.
They are not teaching kids, they are indoctrinating them – whether on gender, veganism, climate apocalypse or other left wing policies, the long march is keen to grab the young minds to mould them in tomorrows left wing soldiers
The Captain of the Titanic has a lot to answer for – clearly he had no respect for the seriousness of climate change. I shouldn’t wonder if the whole thing’s not his fault.
Isn’t calving a sign the ice sheet is growing? If the ice cap wasn’t growing, it would be receding.
She selfishly altered nature? Without permission. How dare she?
Once in the water.. that ice cube would have melted soon anyway, and combined with the salt water, making it unusable for beverage purposes.
She just chose not to waste it.
Years ago much ice was hauled out of Glacier Bay, barged to Seattle, cleaned, crushed, bagged, and sent to Japan for use in drinks.
Search images for: glacier bay ice bags
Still available, I think: Packaged Ice | Arctic Glacier English :
John, unfortunately, I don’t think that’s legitimate ice from glaciers anymore. Arctic Ice manufactures all of their ice. I’d pay top dollar for the treat of having glacial ice, though.
Try Reykya vodka from Iceland, claimed to be made from icebergs, it is good.
Can find it here in Calgary.
Yes, the company I knew about began the activity so the barges would not return empty after taking real goods north. When the Japanese economy tanked — 1991, I think — so did the $$ per chunk.
Story tip…
Rich people burning fossil fuels will kill one billion poor people. Models say so…
– – – – – – – – –
One BILLION people will die from climate change by 2100, study claims
World’s richest will cause mass death – mostly poor people in developing nations
1 billion people is currently one eighth of the global population
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-12465331/One-BILLION-people-die-climate-change-2100-study-claims.html
The study…
Quantifying Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Human Deaths to Guide Energy Policy
When attempting to quantify future harms caused by carbon emissions and to set appropriate energy policies, it has been argued that the most important metric is the number of human deaths caused by climate change. Several studies have attempted to overcome the uncertainties associated with such forecasting. In this article, approaches to estimating future human death tolls from climate change relevant at any scale or location are compared and synthesized, and implications for energy policy are considered.
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/16/16/6074
Yet think of the short destitute lives those people would have lived WITHOUT fossil fuels.
All of western civilisation is built on the use of fossil fuels.
And I can assure you, that a lot more than a billion people will die before 2100.
Anyone born last century, will probably be in that count.
“One BILLION people will die from climate change by 2100, study claims”
I think I have seen about six different articles on my newsfeed blaring this across the internet today. Same story, just a little bit different take (unwarranted assumption) on it from each alarmist author.
The average lifespan of humans will ensure that 7 billion people are dead by 2100.
They have yet to find the first actual climate change victim, yet they are predicting that there will be a billion over the next 77 years?
These guys really don’t have any grip on even basic science or math.
There is a typo and an undercount.
It should read “7 billion set to die by 2100 due to climate change policy”.
Far more likely result if you destroy energy, fertilizer and agriculture at the same time.
In fact it will occur before 2100 if the insane get their way.
World’s richest will cause mass death – mostly poor people in developing nations”
If they keep denying them the use of fossil fuel; energy, expecting them to survive on just wind and solar…
.. then YES, they most certainly will continue to cause lots of premature deaths.
If Churchill was alive today, I could imagine his take – Never in the field of human suffering, was so much harm done, to so many, by so few
According to the Danes, it looks like we added about 600GT of ice to Greenland and 200GT melted off for a net, net GAIN of 400GT for the Greenland ice season ending today. 400GT is 400 billion cubic meters of ice.
Since I’m getting old and have trouble counting 0’s these days, 400 billion cubic meters is a stack of 1 square meter sized ice blocks stacked that goes to Mars or maybe the Moon, I’m not sure which.. or somewhere in between or almost to the Moon, but it’s one whole lotta ice. Certainly enough to fill Martha Stewart’s whiskey glass more than once.
I am marginally offended that Convicted Felon was not included in her bio-list…
…were they wanting her to distill some sea water then use oil fired refrigeration to turn it into ice instead?
Heh. Rather, they wanted her to pedal her bamboo bicycle-powered static electricity generator at top speed for about 2 hours to run a little pump (made out of bamboo) that would cause diethyl ether to boil creating an ice cube the size of a pea.
Multi-year Arctic pack ice also makes great ice cubes & drinking water.
She made a joke about glaciers, and Warmunistas got their panties in a twist over it. Hilarious.
They didn’t.
Another Nick-pick Streisand moment.
Hilarious. 🙂
Yep, knickers in a twist..
Even worked in a bit about wealthy white people.
How woke/leftist is that !!
““I generally love Martha and the excesses of her life”
Woke? But who is this person?
Thanks for keeping the hilarity alive Nick-pick.
It has really got to you hasn’t it. 🙂
You goose. !!
Even funnier was Nick and AlanJ trying to discount it.
Slap-stick clown school comedy at its worst.
OT, but in the same spirit of silliness:
I guess college football is going digital. This week is the beginning of the college football season, and it is being called “Week 0” by sports writers.
So the first week of football is being called week zero. I’m old school.
It’s amazing what people will believe.
Calving glaciers is a sign they are growing, they can’t float away without first being pushed out to sea.
Petermann Glacier, extended to 2011 extent (black line is the 2012 calving line)
Probably time for another calving.
Won’t the alarmists make a hoo-haw of that !