Oh dear, the IPCC have got it wrong again.

The abstract refers to surface melt and melt layers. Your comment twists the use of the word to invoke the concept of a total melt rather than the process of melting.

Hmm, well boring down to find the last time proves that but how do we know what else might have been going on then from a few bubbles of air in ice?

Brian

Have you listened to the podcast? I have. It warns about the Antarctica ice being more unstable.

Brian

rather than

I don't twist anything, it was the IPCC that have been claiming Greenland ice would melt and raise sea height by several meters if we had a three degree rise.

Its just more proof that the whole idea of climate change is based on a few poorly implemented models that just don't work.

That doesn't sound very sensible. You can melt a bit of ice and find the ratio without needing any bubbles as the hydrogen is in the water not the atmosphere.

With a bubble you may be able to see how much CO2 (etc.) was in the air if it is an air bubble captured at the time of freezing.

Ah right. So a three degree rise in temperarture won't cause ice to melt.

It's obvious now where all these scientists have been going wrong.

Have you tried writing to them about this ?

michael adams

...

Does your theory hold true for frozen fish farts?

MBQ

No. google 'latent heat'...

I don't see the point in arguing the issue

time will prove either them or you correct :-(

tim

Latent heat results from a phase transition, in this case from ice to water.

Without any melting ice there'd be no latent heat being produced. .

michael adams

...

Back to front. The latent heat is *absorbed* by the ice to turn it to water. And the temperature stays at 0C during that process.

Three degrees starting where?

It is obvious they are going wrong. Its less obvious where they are doing so as they hide what they are actually doing when they work on climate change.

Why would I want to?

From before the three percent rise, obviously.

Claiming that ice will melt if there is a three degree rise in the temperature seems pretty straightforward to me.

What are they supposed to be hiding ?

To put them right of course, as I very much doubt any of them read this particular NG.

michael adams

...

Time???

The climate scientists have admitted they are wrong. That's what it says, the ice won't melt as previously claimed.

Indeed. Why would there be much hydrogen in an air bubble? And if there was, how would it interact with the surrounding ice?

Also, even in the ice the ratio would seem to depend on what sort of atmospheric and oceanic mixing had taken place.

Except that the ambient temp in the area naturally changes from (say, I have no real idea) -40 to +3 over the course of the year. In the summer some ice melts and in the winter it is replenished again by natural snow fall.

A change from -37 to +6 would mean that slightly more ice will melt in the summer and slightly less will reform each winter meaning that over time the total should reduce.

Of course this might take ages to be noticeable, and it could be that any year on year difference is just the natural variation so we can't know for certain what the trend is in less than perhaps 20 years, so all this comparing back to last year is nonsense.

tim

Indeed. But temperature is a continuum which forms a gradient. So a 3 degree rise in the coldest place in the centre will be accompanied by an increase in the temperature at the periphery possibly thousands of miles away which was formerly zero degrees, if only by 1 degree.

michael adams

...