Another closed thread because of politics @Egon

[Mace Canute]

All good but how does the snow develop & fall when all is below freezing?

How do snowflakes form? Get the science behind snow | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

[Egon]

Thanks Mace. But what I'm interested in is the conditions prevalent for ice masses to increase in volume.

 

[aczlan]

Huh? I, I don't know that!

It from Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail:

Aaron Z

 

[tcreeley]

Even on the coldest days, when the sun hits the surface of snow it changes the temp upwards and you get a skim coating of iced snow that over time turns into a thick crust that you can walk on - with soft snow beneath it.
Every time it snows - there is another layer of weight which will give you compression. 8 lb per gallon. "One inch of rain falling on 1 acre of ground is equal to about 27,154 gallons and weighs about 113 tons. An inch of snow falling evenly on 1 acre of ground is equivalent to about 2,715 gallons of water." (google)

There is your compression force in forming a glacier.

"google" - Glaciers begin to form when snow remains in the same area year-round, where enough snow accumulates to transform into ice. Each year, new layers of snow bury and compress the previous layers. This compression forces the snow to re-crystallize, forming grains similar in size and shape to grains of sugar. - Snowfall on a glacier is the first step in the formation of glacier ice. As snow builds up, snowflakes are packed into grains. The weight of the overlying snow causes the grains below to become coarser and larger. - Glacial ice is on the way. (Fresh snow is about 90 percent air.)

 

[/pine]

Still no answere as to how ice accumulates when all is below freezing .

Now that the question has been reinstated how about answering the question! Your quotes may be interesting but they do not cover the conditions of how the major ice caps formed.

Actually you kept flip flopping on the parameters of the question...but I did answer the question the first time...it's not rocket science or magic...

 

[EddieWalker]

Please elaborate... I'm not looking to call you out, I seriously would like to know what you are referring to. Thanks

I look at everything in pros and cons. What are the benefits and what are the negatives. If there is an overall benefit from something, even though there are negatives to it too, then I'm all for it. This is also how I look at the global warming debate. Do those who tell us how horrible it will be have any positives to it? Why not? History has proven that warmer temps have been more productive times.

Oil is the lifeblood of civilization as we know it. It provides more energy then any other source out there, it's readily available, it's to the point that it's cheap to produce, and you get a great return on it for what you use it for. Pollution is a negative from it, but I feel it's a something that we are improving and will continue to improve. So in the overall scheme of things, oil usage is a huge plus for mankind.

Green energy is a method to generate power to replace oil based sources. There isn't a single green energy source out there that actually works to replace an oil based source. Everywhere there is a windmill farm or solar field, there is still a power plant operating because green energy isn't reliable. Add to the math that windmills cost more to operate then they generate. The resources used to create them are mostly a negative other then they create jobs for people in China and India that build them, and here who install them. Where i'm from in CA, one of the first windmill farms was built at the Altamont Pass. This was a big thing at first, but over time, they started falling apart. A good friend of mine owns a crane business and he was repairing the equipment used to maintain the windmills there. It was a huge money pit that went bankrupt. No amount of money could keep them going. And instead of making windmills better, GE got the majority of the contracts to build them in China, they just keep building them the same since the Fed Government is paying for them, whether they do anything or not. Which is also why I think GE is in big trouble financially. They put too much into green energy and have become too dependent on Federal funds to keep going. Tesla is another one that probably wont make it because they are putting out junk a with massive influx of Federal money.

Australia just spent billions building a battery to back up their windmill farms. That battery will last for 30 minutes,then they are out of power. Only government is that dumb.

How many homes have mercury filled light bulbs in them that are toxic and if broken, you are supposed to call in a hazardous team to clean it up?

How much lead and acid is now piling up in used batteries from green energy vehicles that must be disposed of? How much oil is used to create these cars and then charge them up so they can operate?

Ethanol was a horrible idea to supplement gasoline. It takes more oil to create it then you get out of it. It contaminates massive amounts of water and it removed huge amounts of cropland from food production. It ruins engines, and it reduces fuel economy in every vehicle that uses it. CA went even farther and added MTBB to gasoline to green up the environment without realizing that it poisoned the water table under the ground. Now you can't drink well water in any of the big cities because green energy has been so horrible there. Even using it to water your grass is dangerous because of animals drinking it.

LED's are a benefit from green energy, and there are a few other things like better insulation in homes, so there are some positives to it. But until the free market is accountable for what is created, we will just keep repeating Solyndra by giving old technology hundreds of millions of dollars to stay open when all they have to offer is old solar cells that don't work very well and cost more to make then you can buy at the store coming from China.

There is no shortage of oil. There is no such thing as green energy that actually works. Focusing on improving oil and fossil fuels makes more sense then paying for something that accomplishes nothing. If and when solar or wind actually produces more then it consumes, there wont be any need for the Federal Government to force it on us and use tax money to keep it operating.

 

[Rustyiron]

Well said Eddie.

 

[Egon]

It would seem the world survived quite well in the time frame prior to widespread petroleum usage as we are here today.

 

[tcreeley]

I don't like industrial wind applications- costly, poor ratio of output to input - but a terrific way to make a quick profit setting them up and then walking away, leaving the baggage to someone else. This is the problem in much of the green efforts - the industrial applications. My neighbor is off the grid. He uses solar and supplements with a wood boiler and a generator when the charge runs low on his batteries. His individualized application works for him - whether -20F/snow or 85F/sun.

I like roof top solar for urban areas- but individually applied. Solar farms, just like wind farms leaves someone holding the bag while a scammer walks away with a short term profit (for installation).

I'd like to see it made easier for individuals to get into green, and forget the industrial style applications.

 

[EddieWalker]

It would seem the world survived quite well in the time frame prior to widespread petroleum usage as we are here today.

How do you measure that? Quality of life? Number of children that die before becoming adults? Average lifespan? Me personally, I think we are living in the best time ever in history. What period would you prefer to live in?