At what starting temperature would it take for heat to transfer through 2 miles of water to melt ice. I want to see that calculation.

I don't think that most people would describe Andy Revkin as an idiot. Keep in mind that global warming is just that, a GLOBAL phenomenon. When looking at the significance of heat emanating from within the earth, it must be weighed against the heat that is received as radiant energy from the sun or created by occurrences on earth.

Scientists have extensively measured the flow of heat from inside the earth—it amounts to 0.075 Watts per square metre, while incoming solar radiation is 342 Watts per square metre, about 5000 times as much.

http://timlambert.org/2004/12/hissink/

More jackassery. Do you seriously think that an underwater volcano has heat flux of .075 watts per square meter? Jesus. Also, your number does not take into account reflected radiative energy, scattering effects, back radiation, albedo, or other factors. The number provided there is extremely misleading.

Also, I find it highly ironic that the heat flux given for the flow of heat from the inside of the earth is given over an entire surface area of earth. Again, very distortive considering that we are talking about enormous volcanoes along a specific rim of tectonic activity emitting gigantic amounts of energy into the ocean. Only a turd would actually think that the per meter area of radiation...in the artic no less, is going to outstrip the heat flux of a freakin volcano.



I'd say he is in the business of selling global warming and heavily distoring facts to suit his needs.



Heat in - heat out + heat gen = heat stored

This is true for any control volume. If you add heat to a system, it's going to travel from hot to cold. There are a few concerns that you'd have to deal with such as the volumetric flow of the ocean currents over the given area. But either way you slice it, this immense energy that was released in these volcanoes is going to be absorbed by a system that is essentially an ice bath. Provided the heat isn't carried outside of the ice bath, the heat will ultimately be absorbed by the ice.

Good lord

So pretty much instead of presenting arguments, people who believe in global warming might as well just use words like "jackassery" and imply that any and all data that goes against the varying climate change theories is just distorted deception by the scientists who gave it, right? Why waste time presenting information when you can just dismiss the source out of hand?

i think your post is very misleading. you seem to be in the the business of denying global warming and heavily distorting facts to suit your needs.

LW, seduced by the dark side, you have been. Saved, you can be, still. Yoda awaits.

This is exactly the point. Have you actually measured the amount of heat that emanated from these volcanoes?

It's more important to sound intelligent even if you don't know what the fuck you are talking about and are completely wrong.

That is the meaning of life. Bash moar scientists!

Actually that didn't sound intelligent at all, he just used big words

Oh, common now everyone. It's LittleWing vs. the scientist, here, not a free-for-all.

So on one hand we have a respected researcher discussing the topic of their expertise, using the data they've collected and all the knowledge that comes from their education and field experience. And on the other hand, we have a scientist.

but one of them has a agenda, of course, because scientists wouldn't exist without climate change.

Actually, the scientific agenda has several parts in addition to destroying our economy by creating mass hysteria over global warming. Also, to turn us against God by teaching heathen Darwinist theories in the public schools. To turn our daughters into raging sexual fiends by vaccinating them against cervical cancer.

So wait now. What are your backgrounds here? We have a teacher, a video documentary person, and a what does Bart D and SLH do for a living?

Amazing, the people who have education in liberal arts find dogma written on the internet by scientists with agenda's and say, "Oh, it's written by a scientist! So it MUST be true!"

I have a thurough background in Physics, and have specifically taken classes in fluid mechanics, thermodynamics, and heat transfer. I'm currently taking an Oceanography class, and have a mild background in Transport Phenomena.

Which is basically why I chortle childishly at the following comments in regards to this..."debate."







These are funny things. You guys have no idea what the fuck you are talking about, none whatsoever. You guys aren't coming from a moderately scientific background. You don't know anything about thermodynamics. You don't know anything about fluid mechanics. You don't know the first mother fucking thing about heat transfer. (Temperature doesn't melt anything, heat does.) Which is why you guys swoon over shit you read on the internet. You have no background in it, you don't know anything about it. So you assume it to be true simply because the internet told you so.



Exactly. A scientist on the internet said it was so, therefore it is. The IPCC produced the hockey stick graph, and therefore it must be true. Because they're scientists.

And that's why SLH finds some retarded pointless number on radiative energy that is in no way reflective of what the actual radiative heat flux into the earth actually is. He finds a number, swoons a little, posts it because he doesn't know what the fuck it means in the first place, and pretends like it's relevant to the argument, let alone anything like the type of heat flux coming out of a freakin' volcano.

I could break the math down barney style. Make a few assumptions. But none of you would have any fucking clue what I had done because none of you have the slightest background in any of the related math, or any of the studies that this concerns anyway.

The irony, of course, is that the one other person in this community with a background knowledge in this stuff says, "I'm fairly certained that the natural world is constrained to follow all applicable laws of thermodynamics." And says he needs to take a heat transfer class to be more informed on it.

I can't imagine it would take much more time to actually explain your information than it would to spend half a page hurtling insults about how people accept what they read from a scientist on the internet without support while you're offering as an alternative taking your word...without support.

Nobody mocks your response because you believe differently than we do. We mock because you toss insults instead of supporting your arguments.

It would take a good hour to do the math. Time to upload picturs of my math. Then I'd have to explain every little tiny detail from the difference in how radiative heat varies with conductive and convective heat transfer. I'd have to explain every symbol. I'd have to explain differential equations. I'd have to explain second order differential equations. I'd have to explain derivatives and integration, what they represent. I'd have to explain various aspects of fluid mechanics. I'd have to explain the laws of thermodynamics, and a few other aspects of thermodynamics. So, are you down?

Sure. Try to have it up by the time I get back from running errands. And I'll really, really read it with an open mind, and respond.

Otherwise, like I said earlier, it boils down to "just trust me," which is problematic for me since the man in question made this statement in a public way (meaning one can assume others in his field have read the article) and there was not a resulting uproar of disagreement...or anything close to it.

The good news is I understand the difference between radiation heat, conductive heat, and convective heat, so maybe you don't need to include every little detail. If I run into something I don't understand, a term or theory, I'll ask.

LW, what exactly do you do for a living? Having taken elementary courses in thermodynamics doesn't exactly make you an expert on climate science. Why don't you believe that numerous geophysicists have published papers on the emanation of heat from the core of the earth? Most of us reference the work of experts who've published papers in the field. Have you sent letters to the editorial boards of the journals in which they publish with your own analysis of their data in order to dispute their findings. The fellow who said that the Gakkel Ridge volcanoes are not having an effect on the polar ice melt published that in Nature. And it was apparently reviewed by three other know-nothing scientists. Perhaps you should send your calculations to them.

Why do you choose to believe the analyses of a few crackpots rather than a large number of serious scientists? Have you looked at their papers in detail and rejected their findings? And you can also dispense with rudimentary discussions of heat and fluid mechanics for me. Like McP, I've taken courses in them, too.

admittedly, i have no credentials in the field of physics, nor climate science. i've never taken a class, or even read a book on either topic.