Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Heat up the air above and the ice will thin. The only way to create more ice is to cool the air temperature. The water isn't cooled below because there is no colder area to draw the heat from the water.

Well I'll give Parados a gold star for at least attempting to answer my question about heat transfer when water is freezing and/or ice is becoming colder than it was. I don't see how that can happen without heat being moved from the water or ice to someplace else. And I don't see why that someplace else can't be the perimeter around Anarctica since nobody seems to be disputing that the ice on Anarctica is thickening and becoming colder. That would explain why the recent trend is a slightly higher temperature around the perimeter of Anarctica at this time.

Of course the converse theory is that the higher temperatures are creating more precipitation which is creating a colder interior. But it is just a theory because they honestly don't know.

So my theory looks pretty good.

Thanks. I've been reading up on ice. Especially Arctic and Anarctic ice (which they now think is a much older than originally thought), how it forms etc. But the one universal fact in all forms of ice is that whenever water freezes or ice becomes colder, heat is transferred from the water or ice to something else.

So why do you think the interior of Anarctica is getting colder while there has been a small temperature increase around the perimeter?

I know that temperature is a measurement of the amount of heat that exists

I don't know why the exterior is getting colder, though I think we can come up with some theories about changing weather patterns. We're just going to have to do more research and see.

Why is Antarctica getting colder in the middle when it's warming up around the edge? One possible explanation is that the warmer temperatures in the surrounding ocean have produced more precipitation in the continent's interior, and this increased snowfall has cooled the high-altitude region around the pole. Another possible explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

This image shows trends in skin temperatures

Yes, the heat goes somewhere else. But that is a result of heat transfer. In order for heat to go somewhere it must have somewhere colder to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

If it is warmer then there is LESS heat transfer. Your theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Ice is NOT created if the air is warmer than water. It can't be. Simple physics makes it impossible. In order to create ice faster than before the air MUST be colder. It can't be warmer. The minute the air gets WARMER then the ice being created is reduced.

Your theory doesn't work because over 150 years of scientific theory and laws say it doesn't work. You have to remember that there is a rather large energy source, the sun, that is constantly adding energy to the system.

parados wrote:

Yes, the heat goes somewhere else. But that is a result of heat transfer. In order for heat to go somewhere it must have somewhere colder to go.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer

If it is warmer then there is LESS heat transfer. Your theory violates the second law of thermodynamics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics

Ice is NOT created if the air is warmer than water. It can't be. Simple physics makes it impossible. In order to create ice faster than before the air MUST be colder. It can't be warmer. The minute the air gets WARMER then the ice being created is reduced.

Your theory doesn't work because over 150 years of scientific theory and laws say it doesn't work. You have to remember that there is a rather large energy source, the sun, that is constantly adding energy to the system.

Then NASA is full of crap showing that the temperature around the perimeter of Anarctica has shown a small increase? That can't be happening if the interior of Anarctica is getting colder and the ice is getting thicker which they also say?

All I'm asking is a simple reason for that. And I would prefer one in which Wikipedia isn't the only source.

All I'm asking is a simple reason for that. And I would prefer one in which Wikipedia isn't the only source.

Foxfyre wrote:

All I'm asking is a simple reason for that. And I would prefer one in which Wikipedia isn't the only source.

While I would not go so far as to claim that there might be a simple reason, I tempted to say that the explanations NASA came up with might not be that bad. Then again, they might be (after all, NASA only offers them as "possible explanations"), but I would guess that they didn't use Wikipedia as their only source.

What do you think about the possible explanations NASA came up with (honest question)?

Honest answer: I noted they did not assert a definitive reason for that. But I am suspicious when the only suggested possible reason is one that just happens to coincide with global warming. I'm just curious why other possible reasons were not offered.

Another possible explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

All I'm asking is a simple reason for that. And I would prefer one in which Wikipedia isn't the only source.

While I would not go so far as to claim that there might be a simple reason, I tempted to say that the explanations NASA came up with might not be that bad. Then again, they might be (after all, NASA only offers them as "possible explanations"), but I would guess that they didn't use Wikipedia as their only source.

What do you think about the possible explanations NASA came up with (honest question)?

Honest answer: I noted they did not assert a definitive reason for that. But I am suspicious when the only suggested possible reason is one that just happens to coincide with global warming. I'm just curious why other possible reasons were not offered.

Foxfyre wrote:

Honest answer: I noted they did not assert a definitive reason for that. But I am suspicious when the only suggested possible reason is one that just happens to coincide with global warming. I'm just curious why other possible reasons were not offered.

I concede that that would probably make you suspicious, but NASA didn't offer only one possible explanation, but two. And, as far as I can see, the second one didn't coincide with global warming, but rather with a loss of UV-absorbing ozone:

Quote:

Another possible explanation involves ozone. Ozone in the Earth's stratosphere absorbs ultraviolet radiation, and absorbing this energy warms the stratosphere. Loss of UV-absorbing ozone may have cooled the stratosphere and strengthened the polar vortex, a pattern of spinning winds around the South Pole. The vortex acts like an atmospheric barrier, preventing warmer, coastal air from moving in to the continent's interior. A stronger polar vortex might explain the cooling trend in the interior of Antarctica.

What do you think about that possible explanation?