Why are the glaciers melting?

[happyjack27]

...it's easy to see how you'd apply it to glaciers and global temperature. to get a fair reading you have to consider that crushed ice melts at a different rate than whole ice, and why that is.

So icebergs melt faster than glaciers? Or? Ice cubes melt faster than icebergs? Or my slurpee is going to melt faster than my iced drink (shaken not stirred)?

all three, ofcourse. (assuming we're also comparing the same ambient and internal temperatures, the same pressures, the same phase of ice, etc.)

From the wiki:

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated macroscopic system never decreases, or, equivalently, that perpetual motion machines are impossible.

Which is to say you can't get a transfer of Q without delta T. And the Q flows from hot to cold. Unless you are doing work on the system. Carnot had a few words on the subject (very few if you read equations).

i think everybody knows this by high school physics. why do you bring it up?

[MSimon]

i was giving you the benefit of the doubt. but i can only extend that so far. now it's clear that you really are just trying to be an ass.

Of course. Succeeding I might add.

Now answer the question. Was your bringing up the second law a straw man argument?

i already told you that's not even a sensible question. look up straw man. please! either that or just stop talking, 'cause this nonsensical crap is really kind of starting to bore me.

Well then why did you bring it up? If it was just an error on your part (due to not understanding thermo) I can accept that.

[MSimon]

i think everybody knows this by high school physics. why do you bring it up?

You brought up the second law in relation to surface melt of ice. If it is high school stuff how did you get it wrong? Sleeping in class?

[happyjack27]

Of course. Succeeding I might add.

Now answer the question. Was your bringing up the second law a straw man argument?

i already told you that's not even a sensible question. look up straw man. please! either that or just stop talking, 'cause this nonsensical crap is really kind of starting to bore me.

Well then why did you bring it up? If it was just an error on your part (due to not understanding thermo) I can accept that.

there was no error. on anyone's part, except that of understanding what another person is saying, apparently. (which is why i mentioned straw man.)

i explained in an above post wy i brought it up, which i thought was obvious on its face. and which i've already mentioned a few times by now.

that to get an accurate reading on something like changes in ambient temperature from ice using the heat equation, you can't just look at volume alone, you have to look at surface area too, and when we're talking on a geological scale that might have changed dramatically over the course of the time scale you're looking at, quite independently of volume.

no one said otherwise and it doesn't even try to refute any argument anybody's made nor does it try to characterize anybody else's argument so you see from definition of straw man that it's not even possible to consider whether or not its a straw man argument. as has been said before of other things "it's not even wrong!"

i brought it up because it seemed there was a risk that people were or could make implicit assumptions that the situation was otherwise, which would mean that the conclusions that came from them, while not neccessarily being wrong, could not be entirely relied upon. i just wanted to pre-empt that possibility.

[happyjack27]

i think everybody knows this by high school physics. why do you bring it up?

You brought up the second law in relation to surface melt of ice. If it is high school stuff how did you get it wrong? Sleeping in class?

i didn't get anything wrong. something which apparently you still don't understand after i refered you to multiple encyclopedia entries. and after i've told you over and over again that you were attacking a straw man. (a concept which from your responses i'm not sure you understand.)

[93143]

All right, let's take this one step at a time. He said:

The ice caps are shrinking in surface area only. They are thickening and the ice is growing, not shrinking.

In other words, the extent of the ice is lessening, but it is getting thicker, and he implies that the net result is that there is more ice (ie: the thickening outpaces the losses at the edges).

You said:

the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

presumably using "the second law of thermodynamics" (incorrectly) as a proxy for "the transfer of heat from high to low temperature". Terminology aside, so far so good.

Then you said:

so surface area change is what you'd look for, not volume change.

Which does not seem to follow, in the context of the discussion to this point. If one is attempting to demonstrate that sea level rise is a danger, the relevant metric is assuredly ice volume, not area.

"Look for" in what context? Plainly you think some sort of argument is implicit in this statement as juxtaposed with GIThruster's statement, but I am at a loss as to what it could be. Please explain.

[happyjack27]

All right, let's take this one step at a time. He said:

The ice caps are shrinking in surface area only. They are thickening and the ice is growing, not shrinking.

In other words, the extent of the ice is lessening, but it is getting thicker, and he implies that the net result is that there is more ice (ie: the thickening outpaces the losses at the edges).

You said:

the second law of thermodynamics works across surfaces not volumes,

presumably using "the second law of thermodynamics" (incorrectly) as a proxy for "the transfer of heat from high to low temperature". Terminology aside, so far so good.

actually the heat equation follows as a classical macroscopic approximation of the statistical mechanics implied by the second law. the second law is at bottom a differential statistical mechanical statement regarding entropy / information. i believe someone postd the law more explicitly in an above post. refer to that to see what i mean.

the heat equation is in a sense a more specific representation of it; that is it follows from the heat equation. it also follows from statistical mechanics. the heat equation fllows from statistcal mechanics. the second law is a sort of differential statistical statemetn, in that heat is akinetic energy with a statistical distribution and the second las is a general statement about thow that distribution evolves over time. no mistake here. unless its a mistake in your interpretation of what i said. but that's understandable. well actually it's kind of a stretch. it's kind of like youre going out of your way to be an ass and you really dont give a shit about waht i was really saying or perhaps learning from it.

Then you said:

so surface area change is what you'd look for, not volume change.

Which does not seem to follow, in the context of the discussion to this point. If one is attempting to demonstrate that sea level rise is a danger, the relevant metric is assuredly ice volume, not area.

we werent talking about sea level rise. there you are making another mistake. we were talking about changes in ambient temperatures and how it can be deduced from changes in ice. i said that the rate of melting of ice given an ambient temperature is proportional to the surface are of the interface between the ice and the air (or water). in other words the second law of thermodynamics works on surfaces. and this is true. it's actually quite trivial. increasing the volume of the ice does not increase the flux of heat across the surface per temperature difference. the rate of heat flow across an infinitesimal surface is directly proportional to the difference in heat on across the surface. that's basic thermodynamics. like i said, trivial. it follows directly from starting with the second law of thermodynamics and extending it through space via multi-variable calculus. that's what leads to the heat equation. i didn't think i was going to be teaching basic physics here. i had just assumed you guys all new this stuff.

"Look for" in what context? Plainly you think some sort of argument is implicit in this statement as juxtaposed with GIThruster's statement, but I am at a loss as to what it could be. Please explain.

now you're assuming too much (again). another mistake. making too many assumptions is one of the largest obstacels to good reading comprehension, in general. i've already been clear in posts above on this so there' no need for me to elaborate furhter. if you don't understand then read over them again. (or for the first time?) and more carefully than it seems you have before.

[MSimon]

now you're assuming too much. another mistake. making too many assumptions is one of the largest obstacels to good reading comprehension

I usually blame it on bad writing.

[happyjack27]

now you're assuming too much. another mistake. making too many assumptions is one of the largest obstacels to good reading comprehension

I usually blame it on bad writing.

that works when you're writting but not so well when you're reading. and in fact you can't blame an assuption you made but that wasnt written on bad writting because, well, it wasn't written. and reading comprehension is all about the ability to discern what was written and what was not written so by definition that's reading comprehension.

[MSimon]

now you're assuming too much. another mistake. making too many assumptions is one of the largest obstacels to good reading comprehension

I usually blame it on bad writing.

that works when you're writting but not so well when you're reading. and in fact you can't blame an assuption you made but that wasnt written on bad writting because, well, it wasn't written. and reading comprehension is all about the ability to discern what was written and what was not written so by definition that's reading comprehension.

So if I comprehend the writing well misunderstood is the reading lack of general defined comprehension? Clearly understood in the definition of the relocation?

Does that about cover it?

[MSimon]

that works when you're writting

I get it. You didn't write what you posted.

[happyjack27]

that works when you're writting

I get it. You didn't write what you posted.

are you TRYING to look stupid? it certainly appears that way. your level of comprehension has been getting shallower and shallower and your comments have been getting progressively stupider.

[happyjack27]

I usually blame it on bad writing.

that works when you're writting but not so well when you're reading. and in fact you can't blame an assuption you made but that wasnt written on bad writting because, well, it wasn't written. and reading comprehension is all about the ability to discern what was written and what was not written so by definition that's reading comprehension.

So if I comprehend the writing well misunderstood is the reading lack of general defined comprehension? Clearly understood in the definition of the relocation?

Does that about cover it?

that's you intentionally being an asshole. it just shows a lack of maturity on your part, with a hint of sociopathy. both things that you've already demonstrated quite well. nothing new here.

[MSimon]

that's you intentionally being an asshole. it just shows a lack of maturity on your part, with a hint of sociopathy. both things that you've already demonstrated quite well. nothing new here.

Worse. I'm proud of it. i.e. compliments like the above only go to my head.

Made my day. I must say.

I'm still trying to figure out if you are a buzzword obfuscation slinger or you really know what you are talking about.

I haven't made up my mind yet.

[Betruger]

Maybe a little too strung up.