Arctic Ice Melt Has Reversed
00ZNB
April 7, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583
One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the
planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the
Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain
climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest
levels on record." What was carefully omitted from those scare stories
was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that
there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts
in the past.
Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back.
According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice
Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not
only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than
at this time last year.
What few people know and what the Global Warming lobby seems at pains to
keep known is the fact that there is considerable seasonal variation in
how much pack ice of the Arctic ice pack covers the Arctic Ocean. Much
of the ocean is also covered in snow for about 10 months of the year.
The maximum snow cover is in March or April - about 20 to 50 centimeters
over the frozen ocean. The thickness is not one of the universal
constants, never was.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
Get The TRUE Facts At
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Excellent Links At
http://www.warwickhughes.com/
"...and I think future generations are not going to blame us for
anything except for being silly, for letting a few tenths of a degree
panic us"
Dr. Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology MIT and Member of the
National Academy of Sciences
"What most commentators-and many scientists-seem to miss is that the
only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes"
Dr. Richard Lindzen
[most of the current alarm over climate change is based on] "inherently
untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately
forecast the weather a week from now." Dr. Richard Lindzen
Ouroboros_Rex
> F. William Engdahl
ROFLMAO
Mike
That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all that you
can do since you can't dispute his facts.
--Mike Jr.
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the
> planet
What dramatic cold?
2007 Tied for Earth's Second Warmest Year Andrea Thompson
LiveScience Staff Writer
January 16, 2008
The year 2007 has tied 1998 for the Earth's second warmest this century,
NASA
scientists announced today.
Climatologists at the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Sciences (GISS)
in
New York used temperature data from weather stations on land, satellite
measurements of sea ice temperature since 1982 and data from ships for
earlier
years to construct a record of global average temperatures going back for
over a
century.
The GISS analysis has 1934, 1998 and 2005 tied as the warmest years in the
United States (with 2005 being the warmest globally).
The eight warmest years globally in the past century have all occurred since
1998, and the 14 warmest years have all occurred since 1990.
The greatest observed warming in 2007 occurred in the Arctic, which
experienced
a record sea ice melt this summer, opening up the fabled Northwest Passage
for
the first time.
"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong
warming trend of the past 30 years that has been confidently attributed to
the
effect of increasing human-made greenhouse gases," said NASA GISS Director
James
E. Hansen.
A minor flaw in the GISS record discovered last year did not affect this
analysis, the scientists noted.
Hansen says that warming can be expected to continue, with another record
warm
year coming soon, though it is unlikely to be 2008.
"Barring a large volcanic eruption, a record global temperature clearly
exceeding that of 2005 can be expected within the next few years, at the
time of
the next El Nino , because of the background warming trend attributable to
continuing increases of greenhouse gases," Hansen said.
El Nino tends to have a warming effect on temperatures in many areas, while
the
volcanic ash that an eruption spews into the air has a cooling effect.
While most scientists agree the planet is warming, the trend does not
proceed
constantly upward year-by-year. Other factors cause hikes and dips in the
generally trajectory of the global temperature chart, which has been mostly
trending upward since the beginning of the 20th century.
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all that you
> can do since you can't dispute his facts.
The data does that.
Here are the global average temperatures since 1958. "o" = trend line.
Look at all those "o"'s lined up there. The trend is up, Up, UP.
And most recently the rate of increase is about 2'C per century.
View with mono spaced font.
1958 14.08 *******o***************
1959 14.06 ********o************
1960 13.99 *********o******
1961 14.08 **********o************
1962 14.04 ***********o********
1963 14.08 ************o**********
1964 13.79 **===========o
1965 13.89 *********====o
1966 13.97 **************o
1967 14.00 ***************o*
1968 13.96 **************==o
1969 14.08 *****************o*****
1970 14.03 ******************o
1971 13.90 **********=========o
1972 14.00 *****************===o
1973 14.14 ********************o******
1974 13.92 ***********==========o
1975 13.95 *************=========o
1976 13.84 ******=================o
1977 14.13 ************************o*
1978 14.02 ******************=======o
1979 14.09 ***********************===o
1980 14.18 ***************************o**
1981 14.27 ****************************o*******
1982 14.05 ********************========o
1983 14.26 *****************************o*****
1984 14.09 ***********************=======o
1985 14.06 *********************==========o
1986 14.13 **************************======o
1987 14.27 *********************************o**
1988 14.31 **********************************o****
1989 14.19 ******************************=====o
1990 14.38 ************************************o*******
1991 14.35 ************************************o****
1992 14.12 *************************============o
1993 14.14 ****************************===========o
1994 14.24 **********************************=====o
1995 14.38 ****************************************o***
1996 14.30 **************************************===o
1997 14.40 ******************************************o**
1998 14.57 *******************************************o*************
1999 14.33 ****************************************===o
2000 14.33 ****************************************====o
2001 14.48 *********************************************o*****
2002 14.56 **********************************************o*********
2003 14.55 ***********************************************o*******
2004 14.49 ************************************************o**
2005 14.62 *************************************************o**********
2006 14.54 **************************************************o****
2007 14.57 ***************************************************o*****
Correlation Coefficient .8529209
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VMu14mBXAs
Mike
>
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timese...
>
> Most of that is annual ice now, not multi-year ice. You're an idiot.
I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern Hemisphere
Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean". Here is another link
that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will notice
that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late summer
and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears have
much to worry about.
http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current_cycle.jpg
"As of March 22, 2008 Environment Canada analysis indicates sea ice
cover over the Northern Hemisphere has reached its maximum extent and
is about 3% above maximum extent reached over the last 3 years. Much
of the thick multi-year ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been
depleted and replaced with thinner first year ice. The amplitude of
the 2007 summer minimum extent to the 2008 winter maximum extent is
dramatically higher than in previous years."
--Mike Jr
Mike
Moron,
Got to go to work so more later. Here is another link to tide you
over,
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/feb/feb07.html
"The December 2006-February 2007 winter season temperature was marked
by periods of unusually warm and cold conditions in the U.S., but the
overall seasonal temperature was near average, according to scientists
at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C."
And
"February as a whole was 1.8°F (0.9°C) below the 20th century average
of 34.7°F (1.5°C), colder than two-thirds of the Februarys in the 113-
year record for the contiguous U.S. Thirty-six states in the eastern
two-thirds of the nation were cooler than average, while Texas and the
eleven states of the West were near average to warmer than average.
The warmer-than-average seasonal temperatures in the more heavily
populated regions of the Midwest and East helped reduce residential
energy needs for the nation as a whole for the winter season. Using
the Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index (REDTI - an index
developed at NOAA to relate energy usage to climate), NOAA scientists
determined that the nation's residential energy demand was
approximately 3 percent lower than what would have occurred under
average climate conditions for the season.
Seasonal energy demand would have been lower if not for February's
colder temperatures. For the month, temperature-related residential
energy demand was approximately 6 percent higher than what would have
occurred under average climate conditions for February."
--Mike Jr
Earl Evleth
3ad2df92-d17a-4af8...@27g2000hsf.googlegroups.com, "Mike"
<n00...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
> data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern Hemisphere
> Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean". Here is another link
> that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will notice
> that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late summer
> and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears have
> much to worry about.
If you study the Arctic situation more completely you will find that
1) the winter sea ice maximum has progressively dropped over recent
years from 15-16 million square km to around 14.
2) the spring sea ice maximum has dropped even more from 15 => 12.5
3) the summer average has gone from 11 => 5.5 with a sudden loss of
3 last year. The summer low last year
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
was around 3.5. That surviving sea ice is almost all in the Arctic
sea basin.
So most of the ice which is formed in the winter yearly melts, more
of it is meling than before and it not thick and does not survive. The
surviving ice is getting thinner and thinner. The Anomaly statistic
does not measure this ice.
Mike Dobony
You are ignoring a critical factor, increasing salt content of the oceans.
As the sea grows more and more salty the ice will melt. Accurate satellite
measurements across the globe show no GLOBAL increase in temperatures, only
regional increases and regional decreases.
John M.
> On May 18, 11:54 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 10:13 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 10:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> > > > 00ZNB wrote:
> > > > > F. William Engdahl
>
> > > > ROFLMAO
>
> > > That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all that you
> > > can do since you can't dispute his facts.
>
> > He has no 'facts'. Here is a representation of the data :
>
> >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timese...
>
> > Most of that is annual ice now, not multi-year ice. You're an idiot.
>
> I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
> data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern Hemisphere
> Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean".
Did you not see the rubric that announced "recent 365 days shown", or
note that the anomaly has been between 0.5 and 3 million square km for
everyone of those 365? It's good you recognise you may be an idiot.
Then it will come as less of a shock when the truth strikes home.
> Here is another link
> that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will notice
> that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late summer
> and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears have
> much to worry about.
>
> http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current_cycle.jpg
>
> "As of March 22, 2008 Environment Canada analysis indicates sea ice
> cover over the Northern Hemisphere has reached its maximum extent and
> is about 3% above maximum extent reached over the last 3 years. Much
> of the thick multi-year ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been
> depleted and replaced with thinner first year ice. The amplitude of
> the 2007 summer minimum extent to the 2008 winter maximum extent is
> dramatically higher than in previous years."
Despite the colder N. Hemisphere winter, the Arctic sea ice coverage
is yesterday (May 18th) virtually identical to this time last year. It
may be seen at:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
by entering 2007 into the box for the left hand map.
Earl Evleth
"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote:
> You are ignoring a critical factor, increasing salt content of the oceans.
Cite something on this please. My understanding is the inverse.
Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
evaporation and the sea level is dropping? In fact the melting in the
Arctic and the increase output of melting from Greenland will reduce
salinity. In fact it is the decrease in salinity which worries researchers
with respect to the thermohaline current, if it should move to the south
this will cool Northern Europe.
The following article argues for colder winters because of salinity DECREASE
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/20
08/04/24/sciarctic124.xml
Wetter Arctic may lead to colder winters
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 24/04/2008
The Arctic is becoming a damper place as a result of burning fossil fuels,
an effect that could send shockwaves through the global climate system,
making British winters substantially colder.
Arctic ice melting 'faster than predicted'
Arctic ice cap 'will disappear within the century'
Arctic water brings threat of icy winters to Britain
The Arctic has become wetter over the last half century, and humans are at
least partly responsible through greenhouse gas emissions, concludes the
study published in the journal Science by a team led by Francis Zwiers,
Director, Climate Research Division, Environment Canada.
The Arctic has become wetter over the last half century
The new study presents the first evidence that human-induced climate change
has contributed substantially to changes in precipitation patterns from 1950
to 1999 in the Arctic, and high latitudes north of 55° N, says Dr Zwiers.
These human-induced changes have not previously been detected, in part due
to the lack of sufficient data from both observations and model simulations.
Overall, pan-Arctic rain and snowfall has increased by approximately 7 per
cent, while precipitation in the Canadian part of the Arctic has increased
by about 11 per cent.
"The increase in Arctic precipitation is an indication that the global
hydrological cycle is speeding up as a result of warming - in effect, the
atmosphere transports more moisture towards the poles when the climate
warms," he says.
The researchers warn that further "arctic moistening" could occur more
quickly than current climate projections indicate because precipitation and
sea ice have both changed more quickly than models have predicted. This is
especially important because anomalies in Arctic climate can have
repercussions when it comes to the global climate.
advertisement
Fresh water inflow into the Arctic Ocean has increased as a result. The
freshwater is less dense than the salty water and less likely to sink,
disrupting the ocean circulation pattern.
"The resulting changes in the salinity of the Arctic Ocean may ultimately
alter the deep ocean currents which exert a strong influence on global
climate," he says.
These changes, which would slow the "global conveyor belt circulation" in
the world's oceans, may occur more rapidly than thought. This could stall
the ocean 'conveyor belt' that helps to bring heat to the northern
latitudes, so British winters would become colder.
The discovery comes as a conservation group has warned that the melting of
the Arctic ice is happening quicker than predicted and may now be close to
its 'tipping point' when the changes cannot be reversed.
Last summer's loss of Arctic sea ice set a modern-day record, with the ice
extent shrinking to a minimum of about 1.6 million square miles (4.1 million
square kilometres) in September. That was 43 percent less ice coverage than
in 1979, when accurate satellite observations began.
As the ice shrinks, incoming sunshine triggers a feedback effect: the newly
exposed dark ocean waters, much darker than the ice, absorb the Sun's
radiation instead of reflecting it. This warms the water and melts more ice,
which in turn leads to more absorption of radiation and still more warming.
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> Moron,
> Got to go to work so more later. Here is another link to tide you
> over,
> "The December 2006-February 2007 winter season temperature was marked
> by periods of unusually warm and cold conditions in the U.S., but the
> overall seasonal temperature was near average, according to scientists
> at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C."
The U.S. constitutes only 2% of the earth's surface.
MMMMMMOOOOOOORRRRRRRRROOOOOONNNNN
Globally the 2007 was the second warmest on record.
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> "February as a whole was 1.8°F (0.9°C) below the 20th century average
> of 34.7°F (1.5°C), colder than two-thirds of the Februarys in the 113-
> year record for the contiguous U.S. Thirty-six states
And the AmeriKKKan stupidity continues....
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote
> You are ignoring a critical factor, increasing salt content of the oceans.
MMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
The oceans are growing <LESS> salty as ocean water is diluted by glacial
melt water.
"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote
> Accurate satellite measurements across the globe show no GLOBAL increase
> in temperatures, only
> regional increases and regional decreases.
Satellites don't measure surface temperatures....
MMMMMMMOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
V-for-Vendicar
"John M." <john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> Despite the colder N. Hemisphere winter, the Arctic sea ice coverage
> is yesterday (May 18th) virtually identical to this time last year.
MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
Ominous Arctic melt worries experts
-----------------------------------
- SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer - Dec 9 2007
WASHINGTON - An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated
this summer, a warning sign that some scientists worry could mean global
warming
has passed an ominous tipping point. One even speculated that summer sea ice
would be gone in five years.
Greenland's ice sheet melted nearly 19 billion tons more than the previous
high
mark, and the volume of Arctic sea ice at summer's end was half what it was
just
four years earlier, according to new NASA satellite data obtained by The
Associated Press.
"The Arctic is screaming," said Mark Serreze, senior scientist at the
government's snow and ice data center in Boulder, Colo.
Just last year, two top scientists surprised their colleagues by projecting
that
the Arctic sea ice was melting so rapidly that it could disappear entirely
by
the summer of 2040.
This week, after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay
Zwally
said: "At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of
summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions."
So scientists in recent days have been asking themselves these questions:
Was
the record melt seen all over the Arctic in 2007 a blip amid relentless and
steady warming? Or has everything sped up to a new climate cycle that goes
beyond the worst case scenarios presented by computer models?
"The Arctic is often cited as the canary in the coal mine for climate
warming,"
said Zwally, who as a teenager hauled coal. "Now as a sign of climate
warming,
the canary has died. It is time to start getting out of the coal mines."
It is the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels that produces carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases, responsible for man-made global warming.
For
the past several days, government diplomats have been debating in Bali,
Indonesia, the outlines of a new climate treaty calling for tougher limits
on
these gases.
What happens in the Arctic has implications for the rest of the world.
Faster
melting there means eventual sea level rise and more immediate changes in
winter
weather because of less sea ice.
In the United States, a weakened Arctic blast moving south to collide with
moist
air from the Gulf of Mexico can mean less rain and snow in some areas,
including
the drought-stricken Southeast, said Michael MacCracken, a former federal
climate scientist who now heads the nonprofit Climate Institute. Some
regions,
like Colorado, would likely get extra rain or snow.
More than 18 scientists told The AP that they were surprised by the level of
ice
melt this year.
"I don't pay much attention to one year ... but this year the change is so
big,
particularly in the Arctic sea ice, that you've got to stop and say, 'What
is
going on here?' You can't look away from what's happening here," said Waleed
Abdalati, NASA's chief of cyrospheric sciences. "This is going to be a
watershed
year."
2007 shattered records for Arctic melt in the following ways:
. 552 billion tons of ice melted this summer from the Greenland ice sheet,
according to preliminary satellite data to be released by NASA Wednesday.
That's
15 percent more than the annual average summer melt, beating 2005's record.
. A record amount of surface ice was lost over Greenland this year, 12
percent
more than the previous worst year, 2005, according to data the University of
Colorado released Monday. That's nearly quadruple the amount that melted
just 15
years ago. It's an amount of water that could cover Washington, D.C., a
half-mile deep, researchers calculated.
. The surface area of summer sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean this
summer
was nearly 23 percent below the previous record. The dwindling sea ice
already
has affected wildlife, with 6,000 walruses coming ashore in northwest Alaska
in
October for the first time in recorded history. Another first: the Northwest
Passage was open to navigation.
. Still to be released is NASA data showing the remaining Arctic sea ice to
be
unusually thin, another record. That makes it more likely to melt in future
summers. Combining the shrinking area covered by sea ice with the new
thinness
of the remaining ice, scientists calculate that the overall volume of ice is
half of 2004's total.
. Alaska's frozen permafrost is warming, not quite thawing yet. But
temperature
measurements 66 feet deep in the frozen soil rose nearly four-tenths of a
degree
from 2006 to 2007, according to measurements from the University of Alaska.
While that may not sound like much, "it's very significant," said University
of
Alaska professor Vladimir Romanovsky.
Greenland, in particular, is a significant bellwether. Most of its surface
is
covered by ice. If it completely melted - something key scientists think
would
likely take centuries, not decades - it could add more than 22 feet to the
world's sea level.
However, for nearly the past 30 years, the data pattern of its ice sheet
melt
has zigzagged. A bad year, like 2005, would be followed by a couple of
lesser
years.
According to that pattern, 2007 shouldn't have been a major melt year, but
it
was, said Konrad Steffen, of the University of Colorado, which gathered the
latest data.
"I'm quite concerned," he said. "Now I look at 2008. Will it be even warmer
than
the past year?"
Other new data, from a NASA satellite, measures ice volume. NASA
geophysicist
Scott Luthcke, reviewing it and other Greenland numbers, concluded: "We are
quite likely entering a new regime."
Melting of sea ice and Greenland's ice sheets also alarms scientists because
they become part of a troubling spiral.
White sea ice reflects about 80 percent of the sun's heat off Earth, NASA's
Zwally said. When there is no sea ice, about 90 percent of the heat goes
into
the ocean which then warms everything else up. Warmer oceans then lead to
more
melting.
"That feedback is the key to why the models predict that the Arctic warming
is
going to be faster," Zwally said. "It's getting even worse than the models
predicted."
NASA scientist James Hansen, the lone-wolf researcher often called the
godfather
of global warming, on Thursday will tell scientists and others at a meeting
of
researchers in San Francisco that in some ways Earth has hit one of his
so-called tipping points, based on Greenland melt data.
"We have passed that and some other tipping points in the way that I will
define
them," Hansen said in an e-mail. "We have not passed a point of no return.
We
can still roll things back in time - but it is going to require a quick turn
in
direction."
Last year, Cecilia Bitz at the University of Washington and Marika Holland
at
the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado startled their
colleagues when they predicted an Arctic free of sea ice in just a few
decades.
Both say they are surprised by the dramatic melt of 2007.
Bitz, unlike others at NASA, believes that "next year we'll be back to
normal,
but we'll be seeing big anomalies again, occurring more frequently in the
future." And that normal, she said, is still a "relentless decline" in ice.
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
> data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern Hemisphere
> Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean". Here is another link
> that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will notice
> that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late summer
> and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears have
> much to worry about.
Your chart shows a sea ice decline (minimum ice) from 6 million square
miles in 2004 to just about 4.5 million square miles in 2007. A reduction of
25% in 3 years. This is during the summer months when the animals are
normally on the ice feeding.
Whata Fool
>On 19/05/08 18:36, in article kkj5fbc8aa3c$.13vdze5kyocqi$.d...@40tude.net,
>"Mike Dobony" <sw...@notasarian-host.net> wrote:
>
>> You are ignoring a critical factor, increasing salt content of the oceans.
>
>Cite something on this please. My understanding is the inverse.
>
>Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
>evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
Paul E. Lehmann
Geology is not Earl's strong suite.
V-for-Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
You seem unaware that river water is less salty than ocean water.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNN
The Effect of a Large Freshwater Perturbation on the Glacial North Atlantic
Ocean Using a Coupled General Circulation Model
Journal of Climate
Date:
September 1, 2006
Author:
Broccoli, A J; Crucifix, M; Et al; Gregory, J M; Hewitt, C D
V-for-Vendicar
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote
> Geology is not Earl's strong suite.
And you seem blissfully unaware that ocean water is more salty than river
water.
MMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNN
Mike
> On May 19, 5:06 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 18, 11:54 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>
> > > On May 18, 10:13 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 16, 10:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > 00ZNB wrote:
> > > > > > F. William Engdahl
>
> > > > > ROFLMAO
>
> > > > That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all that you
> > > > can do since you can't dispute his facts.
>
> > > He has no 'facts'. Here is a representation of the data :
>
> > >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timese...
>
> > > Most of that is annual ice now, not multi-year ice. You're an idiot.
>
> > I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use current
> > data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern Hemisphere
> > Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean".
>
Am not. :-)
You mean that is not the title?
1. I do try to use current data.
2. The title is as I described.
That being said, the chart was very small on my display. I zoomed in
on the title and didn't look any further.
>
> > Here is another link
> > that shows the Arctic Sea Ice from 2004 to March 2008. You will notice
> > that the sea ice coverage is cyclic with a minimum in the late summer
> > and the maximum around March. I don't think that the polar bears have
> > much to worry about.
>
> You think wrong.
>
> >http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current_cycle.jpg
>
> That's actual area, and says nothing about the thickness.
>
> > "As of March 22, 2008 Environment Canada analysis indicates sea ice
> > cover over the Northern Hemisphere has reached its maximum extent and
> > is about 3% above maximum extent reached over the last 3 years. Much
> > of the thick multi-year ice in the central Arctic Ocean has been
> > depleted and replaced with thinner first year ice. The amplitude of
> > the 2007 summer minimum extent to the 2008 winter maximum extent is
> > dramatically higher than in previous years."
>
> The amplitude is greater because the ice is much thinner you idiot.
Wow. You are really full of yourself.
The original append was extent of coverage. Notice that as much ice
was lost last autumn, that loss was made up. The cycle is balanced.
Your data doesn't go back very far. You have no idea what the
historical variation actually is. Of course that wont stop you from
drawing conclusions from too little data.
--Mike Jr
V-for-Vendicar
"Mike" <n00...@comcast.net> wrote
> The original append was extent of coverage. Notice that as much ice
> was lost last autumn, that loss was made up.
MMMMMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNN
Apparently RepubliKKKans like Mike don't know the difference between area
and volume.
00ZNB
"kT" <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:6d469437-3f94-444f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 11:14 pm, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On May 19, 9:13 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On May 19, 5:06 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > On May 18, 11:54 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On May 18, 10:13 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On May 16, 10:26 am, "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > 00ZNB wrote:
>> > > > > > > F. William Engdahl
>>
>> > > > > > ROFLMAO
>>
>> > > > > That should put him in his place. But I guess that it is all
>> > > > > that you
>> > > > > can do since you can't dispute his facts.
>>
>> > > > He has no 'facts'. Here is a representation of the data :
>>
>> > > >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/sea.ice.anomaly.timese...
>>
>> > > > Most of that is annual ice now, not multi-year ice. You're an
>> > > > idiot.
>>
>> > > I may be an idiot; opinions vary. However, I do try to use
>> > > current
>> > > data. The link you provided shows a chart titled "Northern
>> > > Hemisphere
>> > > Sea Ice Anomaly, Anomaly from 1978-2000 mean".
>>
>> > You are a liar. That chart is up to date almost to the day.
>>
>> Am not. :-)
>>
>> You mean that is not the title?
>
>
>> 1. I do try to use current data.
>> 2. The title is as I described.
>
>
>> That being said, the chart was very small on my display. I zoomed in
>> on the title and didn't look any further.
>
> fall and melts off again every summer. Clearly the cycle is about to
> go badly out of balance. It's already out of balance, the multi-year
> ice is disappearing, filled in by yearly ice.
>
> Look at this, the multiyear ice is breaking up and being flushed out
> into the ocean. It's suddenly become a huge multiyear ice toilet up
> there, on both sides, surely that''s got to be affecting the open
> ocean.
>
>> Your data doesn't go back very far. You have no idea what the
>> historical variation actually is. Of course that wont stop you from
>> drawing conclusions from too little data.
>
> multiyear ice in the arctic, and a melt off of the summer ice is
> beginning. That's a sign of a warming world, you can see it happening
> in the chart as you read along it, the entire arctic ice system is
> waning
DEJA VU!!!!
US Weather Bureau 1922
2 May 2008
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/print.html
The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some
places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to
the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway.
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all
point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of
temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that
scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29
minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream
still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of
earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known
glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are
found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts,
which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in
the old seal fishing grounds.
A RealClimate blogger? No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the
principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich
countries?...In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the
only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" Maurice Strong,1990
00ZNB
> news:6d469437-3f94-444f...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> On May 19, 11:14 pm, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On May 19, 9:13 am, kT <cos...@lifeform.org> wrote:
>>> > On May 19, 5:06 am, Mike <n00s...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> The conclusion is the global warming is causing the collapse of the
>> multiyear ice in the arctic, and a melt off of the summer ice is
>> beginning. That's a sign of a warming world, you can see it happening
>> in the chart as you read along it, the entire arctic ice system is
>> waning
ROTFLMAO
ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!
This melt is not global unlesss Antarctica and the southern hemisphere
join in!
Antarctica is cooling and the ice is growing to record levels!
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a
25-year Rise" New York Times, March 27, 1933
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> ABSOLUTE GARBAGE!
> This melt is not global unlesss Antarctica and the southern hemisphere
> join in! Antarctica is cooling and the ice is growing to record levels!
Hundreds of Glaciers Melting Faster in Antarctica
-------------------------------------------------
Brian Handwerk
for National Geographic News
June 6, 2007
Hundreds of glaciers in Antarctica are melting faster as the region's
climate warms, a new satellite study has revealed.
As the rivers of ice flow into the ocean, they could cause global sea levels
to rise higher and faster than scientists had previously predicted.
Satellite images of more than 300 glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula showed
that they were flowing some 12 percent faster in 2003 than they were in 1993
(see an interactive map of Antarctica).
"It is increasingly apparent that glaciers can be sensitive on much shorter
time scales than traditionally thought," said lead author Hamish Pritchard
of the British Antarctic Survey.
"What is telling about [the study results] is that so many glaciers are
behaving in such a similar way, and so quickly," he added.
"This is strong evidence for a big change in climate on a regional scale
such as has been observed."
Pritchard noted that the Antarctic Peninsula's annual average air
temperature has risen 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) since 1950,
while near-surface ocean waters have warmed 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree
Celsius).
Eighty-seven percent of the peninsula's glaciers have been retreating during
the same period, he added.
The Antarctic findings may not be unique-they are similar to recent reports
from coastal Greenland.
Will the "High Seas" Get Higher?
An Antarctic glacial meltdown could have dramatic impacts for ocean level
rise.
The latest estimates for sea level rise cited by the International Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) are based largely on the melting of nonpolar glaciers
and the expansion of warmer ocean waters.
The estimates do not account for the impact of dynamic effects like those
seen in Antarctica, because the processes are poorly understood.
Dynamic effects are happening, Pritchard said.
"They are quite large in magnitude and are likely to get larger so that they
could dominate the sea level rise signal.
"The importance of dynamic effects is that they can transfer ice very
quickly into the sea, much quicker than melting the ice sheet or glacier
surface and letting it run off as water."
Just how high could seas rise? Pritchard explained that no one can be sure.
"We're not yet at the stage where we can come up with new sea-level rise
predictions except to say that it is very likely to be larger than the
numbers in the IPCC report."
Pritchard and colleagues from British Antarctic Survey published their
findings this week in the Journal of Geophysical Research.
Glacial Splashdowns Like "Stack of Dominoes"
The study suggests that faster glacier flows are caused by a thinning of the
glaciers' lowest layers, the sections that extend down through fjords and
into the sea.
The weight of these lower layers is supported by seawater rather than by
land. As the ice thins, the glaciers become more buoyant, allowing them to
flow faster toward the sea.
"What we are finding is that these glaciers are very sensitive to the
conditions at their ocean boundaries," said Ian Howat, a researcher with the
University of Washington's Polar Science Center who is unaffiliated with the
study.
"Apparently a relatively small amount of melting at this boundary, either
from the increased air or ocean temperatures, is enough to destabilize the
entire glacier.
"These glaciers act like a stack of dominoes, with a slight nudge at the
front causing the entire stack to fall over," he added.
Howat cautioned that many aspects of glacial dynamics, and how they could
react to climate change, remain mysterious.
"The question still remains as to whether the changes we're observing are
permanent or are a more regular purging of the system," he said.
In the case of Greenland the amount of ice that the glaciers has lost is
very small relative to the size of the ice sheet, he said, so the ice sheet
could restabilize and even grow again with a small amount of cooling or
increased precipitation.
"However the glaciers in Alaska or the Antarctic Peninsula aren't supplied
by a vast ice sheet," Howat added, "so for them to regrow or even stabilize
for the long term would take a much more drastic reversal in current climate
trends."
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> A RealClimate blogger? No, that was the US Weather Bureau in 1922.
I didn't realize that they had satellite observations in 1922.
MMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNN
NASA finds evidence of widespread Antarctic melting
Last Updated: Wednesday, May 16, 2007 | 10:04 AM ET
Rising temperatures two years ago led to widespread melting of snow cover in
west Antarctica, according to scientists examining the impact of global
warming on the icy continent.
The melting of snow cover in regions in January 2005 was the most
significant Antarctic melting seen since satellites began observing the
continent three decades ago, NASA said Tuesday.
NASA's QuikScat satellite detected extensive areas of snowmelt, shown in
yellow and red, in west Antarctica in January 2005.
(NASA/JPL) It was also the first major melting detected using NASA's
QuikScat satellite, which can measure both accumulated snowfall and
temperatures in various regions.
The team of scientists found evidence of melting in regions not normally
affected: up to 900 kilometres inland from the open ocean, farther than 85
degrees south (within 500 kilometres of the South Pole) and higher than
2,000 metres above sea level.
QuikScat found maximum air temperatures at the time of melting were
unusually high, reaching more than 5 C in one of the areas. These maximum
temperatures remained above the melting point for approximately a week.
The researchers were led by Son Nghiem of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory
and Konrad Steffen, the director of the Co-operative Institute for Research
in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado. They published
their results in a book, Dynamic Planet.
"Antarctica has shown little to no warming in the recent past, with the
exception of the Antarctic Peninsula, but now large regions are showing the
first signs of the impacts of warming as interpreted by this satellite
analysis," said Steffen in a statement.
"Increases in snowmelt, such as this in 2005, definitely could have an
impact on larger-scale melting of Antarctica's ice sheets if they were
severe or sustained over time."
The 2005 melt was extensive enough to create a layer of ice when the water
refroze, but was not long enough for the water to flow to the sea. Steffen
said if enough water from melted snow is created, it could slip through the
cracks of the continent's ice sheets and potentially affect their movement.
The Antarctic ice mass is the Earth's largest freshwater reserve, and
changes in its condition can have an impact on sea levels, ocean salinity
and water currents.
"We need to know what's coming in and going out of the ice sheets," said
Ngheim.
"QuikScat data, combined with data from NASA's IceSat and Gravity Recovery
and Climate Experiment satellites, along with aircraft and ground
measurements, all contribute to more accurate estimates of how the polar ice
sheets are changing."
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many
>> places is very salty,
>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
> Geology is not Earl's strong suite.
This is weather, a LONG and not a short term process, which
adds minerals to the ocean waters, including those which
remove CO2.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
>> evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>
>
> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
OK, what is the increase in salt content of the Arctic seas in the last
30 years?
Long term weathering releases various minerals into the water, this
is one of the factors invoked to explain the current low in CO2
content, the weathering release by the Himalayas.
As for the Arctic sea ice melting,
"the first measurements of ocean temperature and salinity at the SHEBA site
in early October, we found the upper ocean to be less saline and warmer than
we had expected, and surmised that this indicated excessive melting."
Miles G. McPhee, Tim Stanton, Jamie Morison, and Douglas Martinson, 1997.
"Freshening of the upper ocean in the Central Arctic: Is perennial sea ice
disappearing?",
Since the salinity is decreasing ice formation should be easier, it should
not be melting.
Whata Fool
You can read anything you want into a poorly worded remark,
to cause excessive melting, the water would have to be warmer to start,
melting ice causes the water to be cooler.
And it is difficult if not impossible to be precise about everything,
like news headlines for the temperature in Eureka, CA, there might be two
weather stations, one in town in a dry area, and this one;
http://www.ndbc.noaa.gov/station_page.php?station=46022
Don't expect the temperature of that sucker to change much.
John M.
<Just...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
> "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
>
> > Despite the colder N. Hemisphere winter, the Arctic sea ice coverage
> > is yesterday (May 18th) virtually identical to this time last year.
>
> MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNN
>
> Ominous Arctic melt worries experts
> -----------------------------------
> - SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer - Dec 9 2007
>
> WASHINGTON - An already relentless melting of the Arctic greatly accelerated
> this summer,
HINT: The month of December is at the beginning of the northern
winter, the month of May occurs in the spring. You really ought to
start reading stuff before you post.
<snip>
Whata Fool
>On 20/05/08 3:51, in article 8gb4349g7h4almtqq...@4ax.com,
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
>>> evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>>
>>
>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
>
>OK, what is the increase in salt content of the Arctic seas in the last
>30 years?
I am not aware the _Arctic Ocean_ is saltier, is it?
But the Arctic Ocean has a very long coastline, and if there are
a lot of salt deposits near rivers and tributaries in Canada, Russia,
Alaska and Scandinavia, it might be possible, are you fishing?
>Long term weathering releases various minerals into the water, this
>is one of the factors invoked to explain the current low in CO2
>content, the weathering release by the Himalayas.
>
>As for the Arctic sea ice melting,
>
>"the first measurements of ocean temperature and salinity at the SHEBA site
>in early October, we found the upper ocean to be less saline and warmer than
>we had expected, and surmised that this indicated excessive melting."
>
>Miles G. McPhee, Tim Stanton, Jamie Morison, and Douglas Martinson, 1997.
>"Freshening of the upper ocean in the Central Arctic: Is perennial sea ice
>disappearing?",
>
>Since the salinity is decreasing ice formation should be easier, it should
>not be melting.
You are confusing me or yourself, you are talking about increasing
and you are talking about decreasing.
Since the Arctic _is_ desert, the melting and sublimation could
cause an increase in salinity.
Isn't there enough specifics to talk about without asking questions
on both sides of an issue?
Poetic Justice
> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/08 3:51, in article 8gb4349g7h4almtqq...@4ax.com,
>> "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>
>>>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
>>>> evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>>>
>>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
In order to increase the salinity of the ocean, the water flowing into
the ocean would have to be of higher salinity than the ocean.
But it was a humorous attempt at science.
>>
>> OK, what is the increase in salt content of the Arctic seas in the last
>> 30 years?
>
> I am not aware the _Arctic Ocean_ is saltier, is it?
Where on earth is that happening?
Who ever posed that hypothesis, needs to rethink it.
Bill Ward
> Whata Fool wrote:
>> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/08 3:51, in article
>>> 8gb4349g7h4almtqq...@4ax.com, "Whata Fool"
>>> <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there
>>>>> is evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>>>>
>>>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>>>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
>
> In order to increase the salinity of the ocean, the water flowing into the
> ocean would have to be of higher salinity than the ocean.
I don't think so, PJ. Evaporation traps the salt, so any salt coming in
from the river will remain in the ocean, regardless of the concentration
in either.
Poetic Justice
> On Tue, 20 May 2008 20:15:19 -0400, wrote:
>
>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 20/05/08 3:51, in article
>>>> 8gb4349g7h4almtqq...@4ax.com, "Whata Fool"
>>>> <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there
>>>>>> is evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>>>>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>>>>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>>
>> In order to increase the salinity of the ocean, the water flowing into the
>> ocean would have to be of higher salinity than the ocean.
>
> I don't think so, PJ. Evaporation traps the salt, so any salt coming in
> from the river will remain in the ocean, regardless of the concentration
> in either.
>
And the reverse is true, hence the dead sea and great salt lake.
Maybe we should say any *noticeable* change in salinity.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> I am not aware the _Arctic Ocean_ is saltier, is it?
A point I had made, it is not saltier.
>
> But the Arctic Ocean has a very long coastline
The Arctic sea basin only touches northern, Greenland
> and if there are
> a lot of salt deposits near rivers and tributaries in Canada, Russia,
> Alaska and Scandinavia, it might be possible, are you fishing?
Cite.
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/08 3:51, in article 8gb4349g7h4almtqq...@4ax.com,
>>> "Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Basically why should the over all salt content increase unless there is
>>>>> evaporation and the sea level is dropping?
>>>>
>>>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>>>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
>
>In order to increase the salinity of the ocean, the water flowing into
>the ocean would have to be of higher salinity than the ocean.
>
>But it was a humorous attempt at science.
Maybe not, all water in the world is ocean water, or was,
so any additional salt increase salinity.
Want to concur?
>>> OK, what is the increase in salt content of the Arctic seas in the last
>>> 30 years?
>>
>> I am not aware the _Arctic Ocean_ is saltier, is it?
>
>
>
>Where on earth is that happening?
>
>
>Who ever posed that hypothesis, needs to rethink it.
Remember the criteria of "desert", the Arctic is desert,
so the amount of precip is small, and there is continuous
sublimation especially when windy, so it takes more than a first
glance to understand any changing salt content.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many
>> places is very salty,
>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
> Geology is not Earl's strong suite.
Admittedly I don't have rocks in my head.
But salt is chemistry, my strong suit.
You could be of aid in finding how much
increase in salinity the Arctic is undergoing
and that this was the cause of sea ice melting.
The information I cited indicated the opposite.
Whata Fool
I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;
http://www.socc.ca/seaice/seaice_current_e.cfm
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow.gif
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
When will the water start showing?
John M.
> >"Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Again you seem unaware that soil in many
> >>> places is very salty,
> >>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
> >> Geology is not Earl's strong suite.
>
> >Admittedly I don't have rocks in my head.
>
> >But salt is chemistry, my strong suit.
>
> >You could be of aid in finding how much
> >increase in salinity the Arctic is undergoing
> >and that this was the cause of sea ice melting.
>
> >The information I cited indicated the opposite.
>
> I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;
>
>
>
>
> http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_asiaeurope.gif
>
> http://www.natice.noaa.gov/pub/ims_gif/DATA/cursnow_alaska.gif
>
> When will the water start showing?
Late August thru' September
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;`
You generally lack vision.
Look and ye shall see.
The north is in the Spring melt stage which started
around the beginning of March
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
by around July lst the arctic sea ice will be down 50% from the winter
high. The Baffin Island-Greenland are has lost half its sea ice so far,
the Bering Sea is down 75%.
Whata Fool
Whata Fool
We will have to wait and see, won't we. If it is less melting
than last year, maybe we won't all die after all.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> Late August thru' September
>
> And that never happened before the last 50 years?
Not to the extent that is happening now. Please try and
get a boarder view.
Progressively summer ice coverage has gotten less and less.
The three month summer average has dropped from about 11
million sq km to, last month 5.5. That is a 50% drop
in the last 50 years.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
The bottom was 3 last year, down from 4 (25%) in one year.
As has been often cited here, the ice remaining is getting progressively
thinner and the summer ice is nearly all concentrated in the Arctic sea
basin around the North pole.
John M.
> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> >> I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;`
>
> >You generally lack vision.
>
> >Look and ye shall see.
>
> >The north is in the Spring melt stage which started
> >around the beginning of March
>
> >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
>
> >by around July lst the arctic sea ice will be down 50% from the winter
> >high. The Baffin Island-Greenland are has lost half its sea ice so far,
> >the Bering Sea is down 75%.
>
> We will have to wait and see, won't we. If it is less melting
> than last year, maybe we won't all die after all.
Interestingly, the recent global woes suggest that the MIT computer
models made in the '70s and which forecast birth and death rates into
the first half of the 21st C could be going to be broadly correct.
Whata Fool
>On 23/05/08 12:06, in article do5d341h0ghvo7ro9...@4ax.com,
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>>> Late August thru' September
>>
>> And that never happened before the last 50 years?
>
>Not to the extent that is happening now. Please try and
>get a boarder view.
How would you know that, how would anybody know, there
was not a single satellite more than 50 years ago, did they
fly aircraft all over the Arctic Ocean to check ice cover.
>Progressively summer ice coverage has gotten less and less.
>
>The three month summer average has dropped from about 11
>million sq km to, last month 5.5. That is a 50% drop
>in the last 50 years.
>
>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
>
>The bottom was 3 last year, down from 4 (25%) in one year.
>
>As has been often cited here, the ice remaining is getting progressively
>thinner and the summer ice is nearly all concentrated in the Arctic sea
>basin around the North pole.
The summer ice is what it is, if it isn't grounded, it gets blown
around by the wind and currents.
There could be severe Global Cooling and the Arctic ice could be
vanishing, in fact, the temperature of the air could stay way below
freezing and the ice could still vanish, just like the ice cubes in
my freezer vanish, and I never use any.
The ice could all vanish even if the water always stayed below
freezing, as long as it doesn't snow, there are a lot of variables and
processes that the GW experts seem to have missed, even good quality
data on ice cover extent is deficient from 100 years ago.
Whata Fool
As if that has any bearing on AGW "forecasting".
But when in the '70s, before or after the liar perjured herself?
And since you brought it up, the birth and death rates beginning
in 1993 are what made the US economy seem to be doing good, and caused
unemployment to fall.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> How would you know that, how would anybody know, there
> was not a single satellite more than 50 years ago, did they
> fly aircraft all over the Arctic Ocean to check ice cover.
Believe it or not there was "life" before satellites. The
extent of the sea ice was monitored and it reported in the
graph
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
back to 1900. I would supposed that the extent of the ice, how far south
it went was easily followed from reports of fishing vessels in the region.
>
> The summer ice is what it is, if it isn't grounded, it gets blown
> around by the wind and currents.
The seas ice is defined as grounded, dummy. In fact increased mobility in
the Arctic sea basin made news recently. A French boat got "trapped"
purposefully in the Arctic ice and its displacement was mapped
and compared with the similar boat some years back. Effectively
motion of this ice mass has increased in recent years due to
(guess), global warming.
> There could be severe Global Cooling and the Arctic ice could be
> vanishing, in fact, the temperature of the air could stay way below
> freezing and the ice could still vanish, just like the ice cubes in
> my freezer vanish, and I never use any.
You are gasping for air, aren't you?
Whata Fool
>On 23/05/08 22:20, in article s79e34heope5oan1d...@4ax.com,
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>> How would you know that, how would anybody know, there
>> was not a single satellite more than 50 years ago, did they
>> fly aircraft all over the Arctic Ocean to check ice cover.
>
>Believe it or not there was "life" before satellites. The
>extent of the sea ice was monitored and it reported in the
>graph
>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg
>
>back to 1900. I would supposed that the extent of the ice, how far south
>it went was easily followed from reports of fishing vessels in the region.
Now they call them GCMs, still computer models though, what
happened to good raw data?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/IPCCedu/index.shtml
>> The summer ice is what it is, if it isn't grounded, it gets blown
>> around by the wind and currents.
>
>The seas ice is defined as grounded, dummy. In fact increased mobility in
>the Arctic sea basin made news recently. A French boat got "trapped"
>purposefully in the Arctic ice and its displacement was mapped
>and compared with the similar boat some years back. Effectively
>motion of this ice mass has increased in recent years due to
>(guess), global warming.
The entire Arctic Ocean is not that shallow, to be grounded in
deep water it would take ice hundreds of feet thick.
Give some thought to the fact that when the ice blew across the
ocean in earlier times, those on the shore who saw it probably assumed
it just froze, when in fact, on the opposite shore there might have been
open water, there may not have been many people on the north shore
of Siberia then.
>> There could be severe Global Cooling and the Arctic ice could be
>> vanishing, in fact, the temperature of the air could stay way below
>> freezing and the ice could still vanish, just like the ice cubes in
>> my freezer vanish, and I never use any.
>
>You are gasping for air, aren't you?
Just stating the facts based on physics, without snow, there
isn't going to be much fresh water ice, frozen sea water is easy to
distinguish, it has salt crystal clusters.
What a waste of manpower, everybody trying to defend a failed
prediction.
PeterBP
> F. William Engdahl, Global Research
>
> April 7, 2008
>
>
>
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583
>
>
>
> One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the
> planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the
> Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain
> climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest
> levels on record." What was carefully omitted from those scare stories
> was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that
> there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts
> in the past.
>
>
>
> Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back.
> According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice
> Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not
> only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than
> at this time last year.
snip
What is the total volume now, compared to earlier?
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
Whata Fool
>00ZNB <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote:
>
>> F. William Engdahl, Global Research
>>
>> April 7, 2008
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583
>>
>>
>>
>> One of the most dramatic results of the record cold over much of the
>> planet is the reversal of the much-reported melt of the icebergs in the
>> Arctic Ocean. Last autumn the world was alarmed to hear from certain
>> climatologists that the ice in the Arctic had melted to its "lowest
>> levels on record." What was carefully omitted from those scare stories
>> was the fact that those records only date back as far as 1972, and that
>> there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts
>> in the past.
>>
>>
>>
>> Now, as a result of the recent record cold weather, the ice is back.
>> According to Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice
>> Service in Ottawa, the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not
>> only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than
>> at this time last year.
>
>snip
>
>What is the total volume now, compared to earlier?
How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?
John M.
> "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 23, 12:56 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >> >On 23/05/08 2:39, in article c74c34d43pgo4g6s1uj40spccbcaa53...@4ax.com,
> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> >> >> I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;`
>
> >> >You generally lack vision.
>
> >> >Look and ye shall see.
>
> >> >The north is in the Spring melt stage which started
> >> >around the beginning of March
>
> >> >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
>
> >> >by around July lst the arctic sea ice will be down 50% from the winter
> >> >high. The Baffin Island-Greenland are has lost half its sea ice so far,
> >> >the Bering Sea is down 75%.
>
> >> We will have to wait and see, won't we. If it is less melting
> >> than last year, maybe we won't all die after all.
>
> >Interestingly, the recent global woes suggest that the MIT computer
> >models made in the '70s and which forecast birth and death rates into
> >the first half of the 21st C could be going to be broadly correct.
>
> As if that has any bearing on AGW "forecasting".
>
> But when in the '70s, before or after the liar perjured herself?
I don't think Ann Coulter was around in the '70s.
> And since you brought it up, the birth and death rates beginning
> in 1993 are what made the US economy seem to be doing good,
> and caused unemployment to fall.
The forecasts concerned global population
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
> drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?
Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
it is mostly military measurements.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html
for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"
For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html
the comment there is
"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
in some regions during the 1990s."
Whata Fool
>On May 23, 10:27 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On May 23, 12:56 pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> >> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On 23/05/08 2:39, in article c74c34d43pgo4g6s1uj40spccbcaa53...@4ax.com,
>> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> I don't see much water, it looks like all ice;`
>>
>> >> >You generally lack vision.
>>
>> >> >Look and ye shall see.
>>
>> >> >The north is in the Spring melt stage which started
>> >> >around the beginning of March
>>
>> >> >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
>>
>> >> >by around July lst the arctic sea ice will be down 50% from the winter
>> >> >high. The Baffin Island-Greenland are has lost half its sea ice so far,
>> >> >the Bering Sea is down 75%.
>>
>> >> We will have to wait and see, won't we. If it is less melting
>> >> than last year, maybe we won't all die after all.
>>
>> >Interestingly, the recent global woes suggest that the MIT computer
>> >models made in the '70s and which forecast birth and death rates into
>> >the first half of the 21st C could be going to be broadly correct.
>>
>> As if that has any bearing on AGW "forecasting".
>>
>> But when in the '70s, before or after the liar perjured herself?
>
>I don't think Ann Coulter was around in the '70s.
You know damned well who lied before the supreme court and that
altered birth rates forever, and has caused a shortage of people willing
and able to work, and could cause the US to be forced to reinstitute the
draft.
>> And since you brought it up, the birth and death rates beginning
>> in 1993 are what made the US economy seem to be doing good,
>> and caused unemployment to fall.
>
>The forecasts concerned global population
How could the models be correct without taking into consider the
100 million abortions since 1973, plus the additional contraceptive
medicines since?
Whata Fool
PeterBP
I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
Long-range data series are very relevant.
Paul E. Lehmann
I agree. Lets start with the period of time before
the beginning of the last ice age.
Whata Fool
Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
of the subject matter.
The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
pretty much only the Arctic.
He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?
This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,
John M.
OK. Let's have swarms of surplus young males for cannon fodder just
because impecunious parents with large families can't afford to get
them trained in life skills.
> >> And since you brought it up, the birth and death rates beginning
> >> in 1993 are what made the US economy seem to be doing good,
> >> and caused unemployment to fall.
>
> >The forecasts concerned global population
>
> How could the models be correct without taking into consider the
> 100 million abortions since 1973, plus the additional contraceptive
> medicines since?
Modelling future demographics apparently doesn't need to dot i's and
cross t's.
John M.
> a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> >Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> >> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> >> >> How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
> >> >> drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?
>
> >> >Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
> >> >estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
> >> >it is mostly military measurements.
>
> >> >http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html
>
> >> >for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"
>
>
> >> >the comment there is
>
> >> >"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
> >> >1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
> >> >that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
> >> >about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3.1
> >> >m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
> >> >central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
> >> >Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinner
> >> >in some regions during the 1990s."
>
> >> Past history, not relevant.
>
> >I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
> >Long-range data series are very relevant.
>
> Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
> of the subject matter.
>
> The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
> is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
> pretty much only the Arctic.
>
> He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
> 21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?
>
> This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
> the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,
Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
of the record year (2007) on the same date.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>> I get it. You don't know what science is about
>> at all, do you? Long-range data series are very
>> relevant.
>>
>
> I agree. Lets start with the period of time before
> the beginning of the last ice age.
The problem is that the data is much better now and
we can see relationships. We know that paleo
data is more inaccurate in some cases because of the use of
isotope ratios. The error bars become larger with regard
to temperature estimates.
I already pointed out that the error bar for temperatures
since the beginning of the last (and during previous) ice
age is 1000 years whereas the CO2 values are more accurate.
Therefore you have a problem stating accurately that
temperature rose before CO2 values rose. In the current era
we know that CO2 values have been rising since the industrial
revolution where as temperatures follow. So even if CO2 values
lagged historically by the famous 700 years, what does that have
to do with know. I prefer the interpretation that the first
domino to fall in coming out of or into was the temperature
and that the CO2 followed and played a feed back role, meaning
that the temperatures would not continue to rise unless more
and more CO2 enter the atmosphere. But I don't see that mechanism
operating now.
So the idea that we need to understand everything from the past
to understand the now is basically false and misleading.
John M.
> PeterBP wrote:
> > Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
> >> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
>
> >> >On 25/05/08 4:12, in article
Yup. Let's do anything at all, rather than admit to the existence of a
problem.
Whata Fool
Not for cannon fodder, you sarcastic prick, good soldiers to
fight back the terrorists that are killing innocent people.
>> >> And since you brought it up, the birth and death rates beginning
>> >> in 1993 are what made the US economy seem to be doing good,
>> >> and caused unemployment to fall.
>>
>> >The forecasts concerned global population
>>
>> How could the models be correct without taking into consider the
>> 100 million abortions since 1973, plus the additional contraceptive
>> medicines since?
>
>Modelling future demographics apparently doesn't need to dot i's and
>cross t's.
Get serious, the liberals in the Department of Labor Statistics
still seem to think the work force is growing by 2 million per year,
but companies trying to hire workers can't figure out why they don't
get many applicants.
The biggest mistake any company can make is to pay people
to create computer models that predict anything.
Computer programmers should get a life and get a real job
producing goods and services, and earn their pay for a change.
Whata Fool
No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
of that page is old news.
John M.
Apart from a few Kalahari Bushmen, there are no "innocent people " any
more.
Paul E. Lehmann
You left out "In my OPINION"
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
>>
>> where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
>> of the record year (2007) on the same date.
>
> No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
> requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
> of that page is old news.
Just look at the graphs, dummy.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> You left out "In my OPINION"
I don't use the expression since my opinion is not alone.
When I have a unique opinion, I will consider using the
expression. I will probably write "In my informed opinion".
But this is all for the future, if at all.
Whata Fool
I didn't realize you were demented, all normal people consider
children to be innocent, and some people respect women and consider
them innocent as long as they are not in combat.
Whata Fool
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
It does not show the coming summer, and it looks like less
of a negative anomaly for the time of year it ends since about 2004.
You are counting your ice cubes before they melt.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> I didn't realize you were demented, all normal people consider
> children to be innocent, and some people respect women and consider
> them innocent as long as they are not in combat.
Normality is different in different cultures. Genocide has been
practiced more often than not in history, one goal is to kill
the children so they don't become adults. Another form
of ethnic cleansing is to "only" kill the adult males and take the women
and children into the "group".
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> It does not show the coming summer, and it looks like less
> of a negative anomaly for the time of year it ends since about 2004.
Non-sense, as usual.
The trend in the decline of summer ice coverage has been established for
years. That tendency is supported the overall thinning of the total ice,
which makes survival through the summer less and less likely.
Next, a decrease in the ice coverage anomaly low
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
does not have to be continuous. If can fluctuate from at its low from
year to year but the overall trend can still be downward
We see from the above graph that the anomaly trend which initiated itself
around the mid-1990s. From 2000 on the low peaks were progressive. This
summer could indeed produce an anomaly of less that last years -3, let's
say -2, and still the trend is not obviously inversed. It is right now
at -1 and sharply headed downwards but already that -1 is below the lows
of 1980.
Based on last years figure
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
we are currently entering a period of increasingly negative
anomaly, it was -1 at this time last year and -1 now. The slope
in sea ice lost runs about 3 million a month so we will know
quite a bit more by July lst.
Paul E. Lehmann
The church uses only a slightly different
technique. The brainwash the "innocent" at an
early age so they never question.
Earl Evleth
"Paul E. Lehmann" <som...@anywhere.com> wrote:
> The church uses only a slightly different
> technique. The brainwash the "innocent" at an
> early age so they never question.
This is limited to "the church". It is a function of much
of the cultural instruction given individuals through life.
Social behavior is all cultures in hammered into
the individual from birth.
John M.
> On 27/05/08 14:19, in article W5KdnZxpSLKvYabVnZ2dnUVZ_tHin...@comcast.com,
> "Paul E. Lehmann" <some...@anywhere.com> wrote:
>
> > The church uses only a slightly different
> > technique. The brainwash the "innocent" at an
> > early age so they never question.
>
> This is limited to "the church". It is a function of much
> of the cultural instruction given individuals through life.
>
> Social behavior is all cultures in hammered into
> the individual from birth.
Which comes right back to my original statement - there are no
innocent people.
John M.
> >> This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
> >> the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,
>
> >Well, you can check the progress daily for yourself. Go to:
>
> >http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/
>
> >where you will be able to see that this years melt is already ahead
> >of the record year (2007) on the same date.
>
> No I won't, and neither will the average person, video
> requiring proprietary viewing programs is a pain, and most
> of that page is old news.
What on earth are you talking about. Just look at the graph:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
Web.
Earl Evleth
591df502-58db-43bd...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com, "John M."
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
> Web.
Whataffool is "graph challenged"
z
> Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
Not much of a gardener, are ya? Or do you water your plants with sea
water? Generations of Israelis have labored in vain to desalinize sea
water for use in irrigation, apparently.
In addition, there is the usual "internal contradiction instantly
obvious to the inquiring mind but to which the self-proclaimed skeptic
is totally oblivious", as has become traditional in the posts of what-
me-AGW? posters:
Given that salt is soluble; given that the salt in the soil, being
soluble, is being washed to the ocean (as would be required if it is
actually going to make the ocean more salty, I probably need to point
out to you); how long would it take before there is no salt left in
the soil? The only reason places like the Great Salt Lake or the Dead
Sea or Bonneville remain salty is precisely because the salt is NOT
being washed anywhere, it is just redeposited when the rain which
dissolves it evaporates.
But hey, you may have discovered a whole new factor in the vast AGW
conspiracy; scientists who lie about a fake consensus that tidal salt
marshes are salty because of the ocean water; when in fact, the ocean
is salty only because it is bordered by salt marshes, duh.
Earl Evleth
907dfa0b-d5b5-4512...@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com, "John M."
<john_howa...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> Social behavior is all cultures in hammered into
>> the individual from birth.
>
> Which comes right back to my original statement - there are no
> innocent people.
Or you could take the position "there are no guilty people".
The irony being is that there is no free will without it
having been hammered into the individual!
Whata Fool
Common decency would require not posting such garbage,next
you could be describing in detail the actions and inclinations that cause
people to be classed as "gay".
Whata Fool
>On 26/05/08 22:10, in article a56m3452o7ihh3nrl...@4ax.com,
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>> It does not show the coming summer, and it looks like less
>> of a negative anomaly for the time of year it ends since about 2004.
>
>Non-sense, as usual.
>
>The trend in the decline of summer ice coverage has been established for
>years. That tendency is supported the overall thinning of the total ice,
>which makes survival through the summer less and less likely.
>
>Next, a decrease in the ice coverage anomaly low
>http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.jpg
>
>does not have to be continuous. If can fluctuate from at its low from
>year to year but the overall trend can still be downward
There is nothing that says the trend can't start to move upward,
your clumsy attempt to spread propaganda is not worth responding to.
Dan Luke
"Earl Evleth" wrote:
>> or get a 5-yr-old child to do it if you are unsure of how to use the
>> Web.
>
> Whataffool is "graph challenged"
That's a very charitable view of his limitations.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> Common decency
It is not common, like common sense is rare?
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> There is nothing that says the trend can't start to move upward,
A trend is like coming out of the ice age with raging force
14,000 years ago.
Earl Evleth
X_OdnahXt-SZyaHV...@supernews.com, "Dan Luke"
<t1...@dingdongsouth.net> wrote:
>> Whataffool is "graph challenged"
>
>
>
> That's a very charitable view of his limitations.
Well broadly he is intellectually challenged
Whata Fool
Is that what you do? The video there is propaganda if
it is not updated, last year is not this year.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Whata Fool
Sounds like you can't show warming,
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Whata Fool
>On May 19, 9:51?pm, Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
>
>> ? ? ?Again you seem unaware that soil in many places is very salty,
>> and rivers carry salt to the oceans.
>
>Not much of a gardener, are ya? Or do you water your plants with sea
>water? Generations of Israelis have labored in vain to desalinize sea
>water for use in irrigation, apparently.
What are you talking about, desalination kits can be purchased
any place, they should be in all ocean going boats should carry them.
>In addition, there is the usual "internal contradiction instantly
>obvious to the inquiring mind but to which the self-proclaimed skeptic
>is totally oblivious", as has become traditional in the posts of what-
>me-AGW? posters:
You are nuts, or Nutts, just what are you saying, that farmers
are causing the salt runoff, that I am causing the salt runoff?
>Given that salt is soluble; given that the salt in the soil, being
>soluble, is being washed to the ocean (as would be required if it is
>actually going to make the ocean more salty, I probably need to point
>out to you); how long would it take before there is no salt left in
>the soil? The only reason places like the Great Salt Lake or the Dead
>Sea or Bonneville remain salty is precisely because the salt is NOT
>being washed anywhere, it is just redeposited when the rain which
>dissolves it evaporates.
There are thousands of salt deposits all over the world,
http://www.saltinstitute.org/mich-1.html
Some deep underground, some not so deep.
>But hey, you may have discovered a whole new factor in the vast AGW
>conspiracy; scientists who lie about a fake consensus that tidal salt
>marshes are salty because of the ocean water; when in fact, the ocean
>is salty only because it is bordered by salt marshes, duh.
Go ahead with your delusional fantasies, there are many sources
of salt, most are natural, not all the salt is in the ocean.
Evaporation and sublimation of ice in the Arctic may exceed
snowfall at times, so without any river runoff that could carry salt,
the salinity of the Arctic Ocean depends on the balance between
snowfall and evaporation.sublimation.
Whata Fool
Apparently it has been a long time since you tried to control
a 6 month old infant, or your memory is slipping fast.
Dan Luke
"Whata Fool" wrote:
> Common decency would require not posting such garbage,next
> you could be describing in detail the actions and inclinations that cause
> people to be classed as "gay".
Shut up and go play outside.
The adults are trying to have a conversation.
PeterBP
> a...@me.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>
> >Whata Fool <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >
> >> Earl Evleth <evl...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On 25/05/08 4:12, in article omih34duoikjtrhpu...@4ax.com,
> >> >"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> How would you suggest calculating the total volume,
> >> >> drill bore holes every kilometer and measure the thickness?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Land ice is computed from satellite radar measurements. Accurate
> >> >estimates of the volume is only recently available. Otherwise
> >> >it is mostly military measurements.
> >> >
> >> >http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_wadhams.html
> >> >
> >> >for info on "How Does Arctic Sea Ice Form and Decay"
> >> >
> >> >For the thinning part http://psc.apl.washington.edu/thinning/thinning.html
> >> >
> >> >the comment there is
> >> >
> >> >"Comparison of sea-ice draft data acquired on submarine cruises between
> >> >1993 and 1997 with similar data acquired between 1958 and 1976 indicates
> >> >that the mean ice draft at the end of the melt season has decreased by
> >> >about 1.3 m in most of the deep water portion of the Arctic Ocean, from 3
.1
> >> >m in 1958--1976 to 1.8 m in the 1990s. The decrease is greater in the
> >> >central and eastern Arctic than in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas.
> >> >Preliminary evidence is that the ice cover has continued to become thinne
r
> >> >in some regions during the 1990s."
> >>
> >> Past history, not relevant.
> >
> >I get it. You don't know what science is about at all, do you?
> >Long-range data series are very relevant.
>
> Another egotistical GW nut talking about a person instead
> of the subject matter.
Geez, thats ironic.
>
> The OP is in a long running propaganda blitz claiming it
> is warming and has warmed, globally and somehow globally affects
> pretty much only the Arctic.
References to "propaganda" instead of solid argumentation and evidence
is a very poor tactic in trying to disprove something.
> He posted a link that did not mention any year in the
> 21st century that I saw, was I mistaken?
And this somehow makes it irrelevant to the subject? I suppose data from
1999 would be crossed out by you as well on that count.
>
>
> This is 2008, how do those years compare with this year,
> the ice hasn't reached the summer melt yet,
Oh yeah, and what happened in 1958 can't possible have even the
slightest connection to what happens in 2008, can it? Sigh.
--
regards , Peter B. P. http://macplanet.dk
Washington D.C.: District of Criminals
"I dont drink anymore... of course, i don't drink any less, either!
PeterBP
Thats called wishful thinking. But for fun, you wanna bet on that? $100
here (not that thats much worth anymore) say's it won't.
I have the money and my word is good.
Can we get an ajudicator that accepts PayPal transfers and will outline
the conditions for winning the bet?
> your clumsy attempt to spread propaganda is not worth responding to.
Lets see if you'll back your trolling up with more than just word spew.
Whata Fool
Both of you need to attend the control meeting tonight
and learn the new AGW script.
Whata Fool
Whata Fool
John M.
What part of "current 365" did you not understand?
> http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
Hint: Explain to your 5-yr-old that "south" is not the Arctic.
Whata Fool
And the Arctic is not the globe.
This winter was a lot colder on average than last year,
whatever is causing the Arctic to experience warmer temperatures is
related to the same thing that causes western Europe to be warmer
than the same latitude in eastern Europe.
Frankly, I don't see a warmer Arctic as a real big problem,
and if the SH is colder, it would seem to balance the global average.
But send your complaints to Mother Nature, and get back to
reality, there are a lot more important things than 0.6 degrees.
John M.
The temperature change is a symptom, just as it would be in a
homeothermic animal like you. Running a fever in itself is not the
problem.