Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
article:Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
3 views
Skip to first unread message
T. Keating
Feb 16, 2013, 3:01:50 PM2/16/13
to
Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Feb 16, 2013, 4:27:11 PM2/16/13
to
sure, but what does the thickness & extent of the floating ice,
have to do with "global" warming?
have to do with "global" warming?
Surfer
Feb 16, 2013, 5:44:30 PM2/16/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
wrote:
Which implies that oceans are warmer in turn causing greater
evaporation, greater precipitation and worse floods.
Hence:
Flood cover rises to unaffordable levels
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/flood-cover-rises-to-unaffordable-levels-20130216-2ejvb.html
<Start extract>
Thousands of Australians are facing soaring insurance premiums for
flood cover, forcing many to ditch protection even as the risk of
extreme weather increases.
Insurers blame the increases on the spate of flooding across much of
eastern Australia in recent years - with another $733 million hit to
insurers from January's big wet in Queensland and NSW...
<End extract>
I guess the situation is only going to get worse as CO2 levels
continue to climb...
wrote:
evaporation, greater precipitation and worse floods.
Hence:
Flood cover rises to unaffordable levels
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/flood-cover-rises-to-unaffordable-levels-20130216-2ejvb.html
<Start extract>
Thousands of Australians are facing soaring insurance premiums for
flood cover, forcing many to ditch protection even as the risk of
extreme weather increases.
Insurers blame the increases on the spate of flooding across much of
eastern Australia in recent years - with another $733 million hit to
insurers from January's big wet in Queensland and NSW...
<End extract>
I guess the situation is only going to get worse as CO2 levels
continue to climb...
emoneyjoe
Feb 17, 2013, 1:44:25 AM2/17/13
to
and snow pack on the old ice?
Is there some reason to think that the
volume should stay the same in between
ice ages?
Unless salt water can freeze easily
or there is lots of glaciers spitting ice,
there is no way for ice to recover even
if the temperatures stay below freezing.
Have you seen a good discussion of
the Arctic sea ice conditions and how
much of the ice is fresh water ice?
Aren't all icebergs fresh water ice?
Isn't a lot of the ice left from the last ice age?
emoneyjoe
Feb 17, 2013, 2:34:23 AM2/17/13
to
concentration as water vapor, we will be in
trouble, the weeds will be a mile high and
algae will clog the shipping lanes.
T. Keating
Feb 17, 2013, 11:19:05 AM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:27:11 -0800 (PST), 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Spac...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>sure, but what does the thickness & extent of the floating ice,
>have to do with "global" warming?
Huh?, Any large thermal sink below the average temperature of the planet is important in
maintaining the climate human's have adapted too.
Loss of this particular thermal sink has a number of impacts of where and when high
pressure systems form. Like the High pressure that formed over Greenland last fall,
blocking hurricane Sandy from it's seaward NE track and sending it inland..
This is just a small taste of things to come as we destabilize our climate..
wrote:
>sure, but what does the thickness & extent of the floating ice,
>have to do with "global" warming?
maintaining the climate human's have adapted too.
Loss of this particular thermal sink has a number of impacts of where and when high
pressure systems form. Like the High pressure that formed over Greenland last fall,
blocking hurricane Sandy from it's seaward NE track and sending it inland..
This is just a small taste of things to come as we destabilize our climate..
T. Keating
Feb 17, 2013, 11:37:10 AM2/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:44:25 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>
>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>
>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>
>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>
>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>
> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>and snow pack on the old ice?
The sea water freezing process releases a significant amount of salt solution, this denser
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>
>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>
>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>
>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>
>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>
> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>and snow pack on the old ice?
brine solution sinks and helps to maintain the ocean circulation patterns.
As far as old ice.. that's mostly gone now.. just 20% remaining, soon it will be all gone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
"Salinity and Brine"
"When frazil ice crystals form, salt accumulates into droplets called brine, which are
typically expelled back into the ocean. This raises the salinity of the near-surface
water. Some brine droplets become trapped in pockets between the ice crystals. These
droplets are saline, whereas the ice around them is not. The brine remains in a liquid
state because much cooler temperatures would be required for it to freeze. At this stage,
the sea ice has a high salt content. Over time, the brine drains out, leaving air pockets,
and the salinity of the sea ice decreases. Brine can move out of sea ice in diferent ways:
Aided by gravity, the brine migrates downward through holes and channels in the ice,
eventually emptying back into the ocean."
>
> Is there some reason to think that the
>volume should stay the same in between
>ice ages?
atmosphere..
>
> Unless salt water can freeze easily
>or there is lots of glaciers spitting ice,
>there is no way for ice to recover even
>if the temperatures stay below freezing.
The problem is that the water coming up from the equator has more energy(warmer)..
>
> Have you seen a good discussion of
>the Arctic sea ice conditions and how
>much of the ice is fresh water ice?
>
> Aren't all icebergs fresh water ice?
>Isn't a lot of the ice left from the last ice age?
Bob Casanova
Feb 17, 2013, 12:43:35 PM2/17/13
to
On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:27:11 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com>:
>sure, but what does the thickness & extent of the floating ice,
>have to do with "global" warming?
I was taught that "there are no stupid questions". I see now
that this was incorrect.
>> Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>> volume seen in 1979(Sept).. � �I.E. �April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
appeared in sci.skeptic, posted by 1treePetrifiedForestLane
<Spac...@hotmail.com>:
>sure, but what does the thickness & extent of the floating ice,
>have to do with "global" warming?
that this was incorrect.
>> Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>> volume seen in 1979(Sept).. � �I.E. �April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
emoneyjoe
Feb 17, 2013, 2:56:44 PM2/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:37:10 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
by snow on top of any ice.
>"When frazil ice crystals form, salt accumulates into droplets called brine, which are
>typically expelled back into the ocean. This raises the salinity of the near-surface
>water. Some brine droplets become trapped in pockets between the ice crystals. These
>droplets are saline, whereas the ice around them is not. The brine remains in a liquid
>state because much cooler temperatures would be required for it to freeze. At this stage,
>the sea ice has a high salt content. Over time, the brine drains out, leaving air pockets,
>and the salinity of the sea ice decreases. Brine can move out of sea ice in diferent ways:
>Aided by gravity, the brine migrates downward through holes and channels in the ice,
>eventually emptying back into the ocean."
Does that say there is more salt in sea ice
than in sea water?
>> Is there some reason to think that the
>>volume should stay the same in between
>>ice ages?
>
>It was until mankind showed up and started putting large amounts of CO2 into the
>atmosphere..
Really? Is that what melted the mile
of ice on Canada and northwest Europe?
>> Unless salt water can freeze easily
>>or there is lots of glaciers spitting ice,
>
>It does freeze under the right conditions, but it doesn't form thick ice bergs.
Because the water is close to zero C.
>>there is no way for ice to recover even
>>if the temperatures stay below freezing.
>
>It would recover it conditions weren't so warm..
>The problem is that the water coming up from the equator has more energy(warmer)..
Then it is the Gulf Stream and other
air and water circulation (that could
continue even if there was no warming).
>> Have you seen a good discussion of
>>the Arctic sea ice conditions and how
>>much of the ice is fresh water ice?
>>
>> Aren't all icebergs fresh water ice?
>>Isn't a lot of the ice left from the last ice age?
>
>Fresh water Iceberg's that you seek are calved from land based glaciers..
Don't try to claim that all ice on the
Arctic Ocean is frozen sea water.
Any melting now is small potatoes
compared to what went on 18,000
years ago.
What caused the fast melting then?
One of the references above lists
first year ice as being up to 2 meters
thick. I can't believe that ice that
thick can melt in one summer.
wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:44:25 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>>
>>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>>
>>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>>
>>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>>
>>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>>
>> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>>and snow pack on the old ice?
>
>The sea water freezing process releases a significant amount of salt solution, this denser
>brine solution sinks and helps to maintain the ocean circulation patterns.
>
>As far as old ice.. that's mostly gone now.. just 20% remaining, soon it will be all gone.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
>
>http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
>"Salinity and Brine"
All of which seems to ignore the ice formed
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:44:25 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>>
>>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>>
>>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>>
>>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>>
>>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>>
>> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>>and snow pack on the old ice?
>
>The sea water freezing process releases a significant amount of salt solution, this denser
>brine solution sinks and helps to maintain the ocean circulation patterns.
>
>As far as old ice.. that's mostly gone now.. just 20% remaining, soon it will be all gone.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
>
>http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
>"Salinity and Brine"
by snow on top of any ice.
>"When frazil ice crystals form, salt accumulates into droplets called brine, which are
>typically expelled back into the ocean. This raises the salinity of the near-surface
>water. Some brine droplets become trapped in pockets between the ice crystals. These
>droplets are saline, whereas the ice around them is not. The brine remains in a liquid
>state because much cooler temperatures would be required for it to freeze. At this stage,
>the sea ice has a high salt content. Over time, the brine drains out, leaving air pockets,
>and the salinity of the sea ice decreases. Brine can move out of sea ice in diferent ways:
>Aided by gravity, the brine migrates downward through holes and channels in the ice,
>eventually emptying back into the ocean."
than in sea water?
>> Is there some reason to think that the
>>volume should stay the same in between
>>ice ages?
>
>It was until mankind showed up and started putting large amounts of CO2 into the
>atmosphere..
of ice on Canada and northwest Europe?
>> Unless salt water can freeze easily
>>or there is lots of glaciers spitting ice,
>
>It does freeze under the right conditions, but it doesn't form thick ice bergs.
>>there is no way for ice to recover even
>>if the temperatures stay below freezing.
>
>It would recover it conditions weren't so warm..
>The problem is that the water coming up from the equator has more energy(warmer)..
air and water circulation (that could
continue even if there was no warming).
>> Have you seen a good discussion of
>>the Arctic sea ice conditions and how
>>much of the ice is fresh water ice?
>>
>> Aren't all icebergs fresh water ice?
>>Isn't a lot of the ice left from the last ice age?
>
>Fresh water Iceberg's that you seek are calved from land based glaciers..
Arctic Ocean is frozen sea water.
Any melting now is small potatoes
compared to what went on 18,000
years ago.
What caused the fast melting then?
One of the references above lists
first year ice as being up to 2 meters
thick. I can't believe that ice that
thick can melt in one summer.
T. Keating
Feb 17, 2013, 3:20:58 PM2/17/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:56:44 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:37:10 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:44:25 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>>>
>>>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>>>
>>>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>>>
>>>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>>>
>>>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>>>
>>> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>>>and snow pack on the old ice?
>>
>>The sea water freezing process releases a significant amount of salt solution, this denser
>>brine solution sinks and helps to maintain the ocean circulation patterns.
>>
>>As far as old ice.. that's mostly gone now.. just 20% remaining, soon it will be all gone.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
>>
>>http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
>>"Salinity and Brine"
>
> All of which seems to ignore the ice formed
>by snow on top of any ice.
Because their isn't much of that(real snow).. (very little water vapor in arctic once sea
>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 11:37:10 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 01:44:25 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
>>>>
>>>>By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
>>>>
>>>>http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
>>>>
>>>>"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
>>>>sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
>>>>volume — to one fifth of its level in 1980."
>>>>
>>>>Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
>>>>volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
>>>
>>> Wasn't most Arctic sea ice fresh water ice
>>>and snow pack on the old ice?
>>
>>The sea water freezing process releases a significant amount of salt solution, this denser
>>brine solution sinks and helps to maintain the ocean circulation patterns.
>>
>>As far as old ice.. that's mostly gone now.. just 20% remaining, soon it will be all gone.
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_ice
>>
>>http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/brine_salinity.html
>>"Salinity and Brine"
>
> All of which seems to ignore the ice formed
>by snow on top of any ice.
ice forms)
I'm going to ignore the rest of your statements, since it's obvious that you're just
trolling..
Desertphile
Feb 18, 2013, 9:01:04 PM2/18/13
to
regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word
fits.
--
Nemo me impune lacessit.
Presumably polar bears will grow green fur to match the
Alaskan tropical rain forest.
Desertphile
Feb 18, 2013, 9:04:04 PM2/18/13
to
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 15:01:50 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
> >
> >By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
> >
> >http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
> >
> >"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
> >sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
> >volume � to one fifth of its level in 1980."
> >
> >Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
> >volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
> Which implies that oceans are warmer in turn causing greater
> evaporation, greater precipitation and worse floods.
Yres. It also results in greater ice mass at high elevations. Overall
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Arctic Death Spiral Bombshell: CryoSat-2 Confirms Sea Ice Volume Has Collapsed
> >
> >By Joe Romm on Feb 14, 2013 at 6:28 pm
> >
> >http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1594211/death-spiral-bombshell-cryosat-2-confirms-arctic-sea-ice-volume-has-collapsed/
> >
> >"The sharp drop in Arctic sea ice area has been matched by a harder-to-see, but equally
> >sharp, drop in sea ice thickness. The combined result has been a collapse in total sea ice
> >volume � to one fifth of its level in 1980."
> >
> >Even worse, the PEAK spring time arctic ice volume, is now approaching the Minimum ice
> >volume seen in 1979(Sept).. I.E. April sea ice volume max (2012) ~= Nov min (1979),
> Which implies that oceans are warmer in turn causing greater
> evaporation, greater precipitation and worse floods.
there is a sharp decrease in ice mass and sea ice extent.
> Hence:
>
> Flood cover rises to unaffordable levels
> http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/flood-cover-rises-to-unaffordable-levels-20130216-2ejvb.html
>
> <Start extract>
>
> Thousands of Australians are facing soaring insurance premiums for
> flood cover, forcing many to ditch protection even as the risk of
> extreme weather increases.
>
> Insurers blame the increases on the spate of flooding across much of
> eastern Australia in recent years - with another $733 million hit to
> insurers from January's big wet in Queensland and NSW...
>
> <End extract>
>
> I guess the situation is only going to get worse as CO2 levels
> continue to climb...
journals are now talkig about trying to reach a targer of +3c or less,
as that is still thought possible.
Desertphile
Feb 18, 2013, 9:06:04 PM2/18/13
to
On Sun, 17 Feb 2013 02:34:23 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
wrote:
scientist says that it will. And yet we are still in dire trouble; how
do you explain your behavior?
wrote:
> Yeah, when CO2 gets to the same concentration as water vapor, we will be in
> trouble
Atmospheric CO2 will never reach the same ppmv of water vapor: no
> trouble
scientist says that it will. And yet we are still in dire trouble; how
do you explain your behavior?
emoneyjoe
Feb 18, 2013, 10:25:18 PM2/18/13
to
and will flood here, I don't expect it to be
sea water.
And I don't expect to see any all time
record highs.
Less snow is fine with me, and I don't
listen to pot head climatologists on TV.
benj
Feb 19, 2013, 12:42:20 AM2/19/13
to
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:01:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
> regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
bullshit. When did you EVER "object" to using some scary dramatic
> Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
> regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
exageration? Never.
Of course you don't mention antarctic ice unaffected by the big storm
that broke up arctic ice this year. You just sit around waiting for
statistical events that "tick" your way and then scream "warming"!
This is patent dishonesty of the worst kind. You are as big a liar as the
talking heads on ABC news tonight who "reported" that "climate scientist"
"explain" that blizzards are the result of "global warming".
HERE IS THE TRUTH:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSDEC.gif
This is YOUR NASA Warm-baller fudged data! You can't do better than .004
degrees of warming per year! How "scary" is that?
You and Sam Wormley are nothing but dishonest crooked criminals. You all
really need to be arrested and brought to trial.
emoneyjoe
Feb 19, 2013, 2:55:15 AM2/19/13
to
constantly higher than the others?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.C.gif
erschro...@gmail.com
Feb 19, 2013, 9:47:16 AM2/19/13
to
On Feb 19, 12:42 am, benj <b...@iwaynet.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:01:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
> > regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
>
> bullshit. When did you EVER "object" to using some scary dramatic
> exageration? Never.
>
> Of course you don't mention antarctic ice unaffected by the big storm
> that broke up arctic ice this year. You just sit around waiting for
> statistical events that "tick" your way and then scream "warming"!
>
> This is patent dishonesty of the worst kind. You are as big a liar as the
> talking heads on ABC news tonight who "reported" that "climate scientist"
> "explain" that blizzards are the result of "global warming".
>
> HERE IS THE TRUTH:
>
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSDEC.gif
Who would think a denialist site by a nonscientist is remotely
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:01:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> > Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
> > regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
>
> bullshit. When did you EVER "object" to using some scary dramatic
> exageration? Never.
>
> Of course you don't mention antarctic ice unaffected by the big storm
> that broke up arctic ice this year. You just sit around waiting for
> statistical events that "tick" your way and then scream "warming"!
>
> This is patent dishonesty of the worst kind. You are as big a liar as the
> talking heads on ABC news tonight who "reported" that "climate scientist"
> "explain" that blizzards are the result of "global warming".
>
> HERE IS THE TRUTH:
>
> http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSDEC.gif
connected with the truth?
>
> This is YOUR NASA Warm-baller fudged data!
T. Keating
Feb 19, 2013, 10:00:28 AM2/19/13
to
>On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 19:01:04 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
>
>> Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
>> regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
>
>bullshit. When did you EVER "object" to using some scary dramatic
>exageration? Never.
>
>Of course you don't mention antarctic ice unaffected by the big storm
>that broke up arctic ice this year. You just sit around waiting for
Why would anything in the antarctic be affected by a storm impacting the arctic ~10,000
>
>> Less than a year ago I objected to the use of the word "collapse"
>> regarding the Arctic sea ice. But looking at the graphs, that word fits.
>
>bullshit. When did you EVER "object" to using some scary dramatic
>exageration? Never.
>
>Of course you don't mention antarctic ice unaffected by the big storm
>that broke up arctic ice this year. You just sit around waiting for
miles distance?. (Add to that fact in a completely different season.)?
>statistical events that "tick" your way and then scream "warming"!
>
>This is patent dishonesty of the worst kind. You are as big a liar as the
>talking heads on ABC news tonight who "reported" that "climate scientist"
>"explain" that blizzards are the result of "global warming".
Add to the fact that most lakes are no longer freezing over like they once did == more
lake effect snow..
http://m.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/warm-winter-lack-of-great-lake/61588
emoneyjoe
Feb 19, 2013, 5:39:19 PM2/19/13
to
On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:00:28 -0500, T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com>
wrote:
"And there will be less snow"?
More moisture to precipitate, but less snow,
but more blizzards?
Bad things will happen because more
bad things can happen, but just not as
much a little at a time, but more all at once?
Am I learning the double talk future telling?
wrote:
More moisture to precipitate, but less snow,
but more blizzards?
Bad things will happen because more
bad things can happen, but just not as
much a little at a time, but more all at once?
Am I learning the double talk future telling?
Desertphile
Feb 20, 2013, 5:51:06 PM2/20/13
to
On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:25:18 -0500, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
Human-caused climate change, Shit-for-brains. The fact that you will
be dead in a few years does not negate the fact that this is a major
crisis that must be solved. Your sociopathic behavior does not change
that.
be dead in a few years does not negate the fact that this is a major
crisis that must be solved. Your sociopathic behavior does not change
that.
emoneyjoe
Feb 20, 2013, 7:42:31 PM2/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:51:06 -0700, Desertphile
It won't be solved idiot, China and Russia say
so, they could use an extra 5 or 6 degrees, either
unit.
so, they could use an extra 5 or 6 degrees, either
unit.
benj
Feb 20, 2013, 9:04:48 PM2/20/13
to
On Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:51:06 -0700, Desertphile wrote:
> Human-caused climate change, Shit-for-brains. The fact that you will be
> dead in a few years does not negate the fact that this is a major crisis
> that must be solved. Your sociopathic behavior does not change that.
Neither does your psychopathic behavior given that this is a totally fake
> Human-caused climate change, Shit-for-brains. The fact that you will be
> dead in a few years does not negate the fact that this is a major crisis
> that must be solved. Your sociopathic behavior does not change that.
imaginary crisis that you are insisting must be "solved".
So what is the problem to be "solved"? Dramatic and constant rising
temperatures that will kill us all? Whew! NO PROBLEM Bubba!
Here is the NASA GISS temperature plot up to date for more than the last
decade:
http://www.mrk-inc.com/users/bspam/AGWGISSDEC.gif
+.004 degrees per year!
Gosh we won't hit "danger" temperatures until WAY past the year 3000!
Problem Solved! Next!
emoneyjoe
Feb 20, 2013, 10:18:17 PM2/20/13
to
will be a one degree rise.
I'll be looking forward to it.
josephus
Feb 20, 2013, 11:59:27 PM2/20/13
to
My linear data is +
The temperature is *
Collisions are %
50.110| 52.715| 55.320|
--------------------------------------------------------
1895.00000 3 | * + | |
1896.00000 15 | + * | |
1897.00000 11 | +* | |
1898.00000 10 | % | |
1899.00000 7 | * + | |
1900.00000 21 | + |* |
1901.00000 14 | + * | |
1902.00000 12 | + * | |
1903.00000 4 | * + | |
1904.00000 8 | * + | |
1905.00000 7 | * + | |
1906.00000 12 | +* | |
1907.00000 10 | *+ | |
1908.00000 15 | + * | |
1909.00000 10 | *+ | |
1910.00000 18 | + * | |
1911.00000 15 | + * | |
1912.00000 1 | * + | |
1913.00000 11 | % | |
1914.00000 13 | + * | |
1915.00000 10 | * + | |
1916.00000 5 | * + | |
1917.00000 1 | * + | |
1918.00000 13 | +* | |
1919.00000 11 | *+ | |
1920.00000 7 | * + | |
1921.00000 28 | + | * |
1922.00000 15 | + * | |
1923.00000 12 | % | |
1924.00000 3 | * + | |
1925.00000 18 | + * | |
1926.00000 14 | +* | |
1927.00000 15 | + * | |
1928.00000 14 | +* | |
1929.00000 6 | * + | |
1930.00000 14 | +* | |
1931.00000 26 | + | * |
1932.00000 12 | *+ | |
1933.00000 22 | + | * |
1934.00000 30 | + | * |
1935.00000 13 | *+ | |
1936.00000 15 | +* | |
1937.00000 11 | * + | |
1938.00000 24 | + | * |
1939.00000 24 | + | * |
1940.00000 13 | *+ | |
1941.00000 20 | + * |
1942.00000 13 | *+ | |
1943.00000 15 | +* | |
1944.00000 13 | *+ | |
1945.00000 12 | * + | |
1946.00000 22 | + | * |
1947.00000 14 | *+ | |
1948.00000 11 | * + | |
1949.00000 15 | % | |
1950.00000 10 | * + | |
1951.00000 8 | * + | |
1952.00000 17 | + * | |
1953.00000 25 | + | * |
1954.00000 25 | + | * |
1955.00000 12 | * + | |
1956.00000 17 | +* | |
1957.00000 15 | *+ | |
1958.00000 14 | * + | |
1959.00000 15 | *+ | |
1960.00000 10 | * + | |
1961.00000 13 | * + | |
1962.00000 14 | * + | |
1963.00000 16 | % | |
1964.00000 12 | * + | |
1965.00000 12 | * + | |
1966.00000 10 | * + | |
1967.00000 12 | * + | |
1968.00000 9 | * + | |
1969.00000 10 | * + | |
1970.00000 11 | * + | |
1971.00000 12 | * + | |
1972.00000 10 | * + | |
1973.00000 17 | % | |
1974.00000 16 | *+ | |
1975.00000 10 | * + | |
1976.00000 10 | * + | |
1977.00000 19 | +*| |
1978.00000 7 | * + | |
1979.00000 6 | * + | |
1980.00000 17 | *+ | |
1981.00000 23 | + | * |
1982.00000 9 | * + | |
1983.00000 14 | * + | |
1984.00000 14 | * + | |
1985.00000 9 | * +| |
1986.00000 24 | +| * |
1987.00000 25 | +| * |
1988.00000 19 | %| |
1989.00000 13 | * +| |
1990.00000 26 | +| * |
1991.00000 23 | +| * |
1992.00000 19 | %| |
1993.00000 8 | * +| |
1994.00000 21 | +|* |
1995.00000 19 | *+ |
1996.00000 13 | * + |
1997.00000 16 | * + |
1998.00000 32 | + * |
1999.00000 29 | + * |
2000.00000 24 | + * |
2001.00000 27 | + * |
2002.00000 23 | + * |
2003.00000 24 | + * |
2004.00000 23 | + * |
2005.00000 27 | |+ * |
2006.00000 32 | |+ * |
2007.00000 27 | |+ * |
2008.00000 16 | * |+ |
2009.00000 17 | * |+ |
2010.00000 22 | |+* |
2011.00000 23 | |+ * |
2012.00000 39 | |+ *|
--------------------------------------------------------
I have some observations about this graph and this data
my function A+B*DATE is a straight line through the points. but
the points have a general caustic and a different caustic for the lower
points. I know that this is a local illusion but it is interesting
anyway. the upper caustic appears to be a long period sine or cosine
wave. the lower caustic appears to be a long period sine or cosine
wave with a different frequency. the two caustics look like they are
hieterdyning and my average fucntion runs through the center of this.
the caustics appears when examining the printout. and the pattern is
local to this segment of the hockstick.
josephus
josephu
0 new messages