Melting ice amplifies Arctic warming
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Money Well Spent
Next: Quantum Gravity 367.5: Recent Research in Positive/Negative Quadrant Dependence, Bivariate and Multivariate Distribution Functions, Concordance, Copulas, etc.
From: spudnik on 3 May 2010 13:53 Arctic ice is floating, so it is utterly ephemeral, compared to Antarctic ice, and can't change sea-level; just saying, it is bound to oscillate a lot more, than the "dynamic stasis" of the piled-up ice on that continent. > Is the behaviour of Antarctic ice thought of in the same way as Arctic > ice? I mean, I know it's ice and all that........... thus: great analogy, "pencils bend into water," for Hubble's being harried into the dopplerian analogy for redshifting with distance. > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg thus: another thing that is said to be dimensionless, is pi radians, but you had better specify!... "dimensionless constants" are well & good, so long as you *know* what units are actually involved with "c"' (recall, this is Einstein's abbreviation of "celeras," or some thing, which means "speed" in Latin), but I'd hardly say that "c" is "dimensionless," even if it is "one lightyear per year.... and "A" stood for "arbeit" or work, as in "A=mcc;" he was not enough of a schmuck to put his own initial into it, I guess. > --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...(a)netfront.net --- --Light: A History! http://wlym.com --Stop Waxman's capNtrade rip-off from '91 (NOx and SO2; if it's so good, dyscuss it), unless you like gasoline at a dime per drop!
From: Bruce Richmond on 3 May 2010 22:50 On May 3, 4:04 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 3, 2:39 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 30, 1:50 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > > > > >> > .........and your point is? > > > > > >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > > > > >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > > > > >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > > > > >> going to warm Artic ?** > > > > >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up to > > > > >> the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice could > > > > >> warm something. > > > > > > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). You > > > > > are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a weather > > > > > forum. > > > > > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > > > > the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > > > misinterpretaion of "long term trend".- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > What long term trend? The graphs only go back to 1979.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Circular argument really. It depends what you accept as a long term > trend doesn't it? You don't accept 31 years but you cannot provide ice > data that goes back further. There is data going back 50 years, but it > is not in the public domain and there is sparse and ad-hoc data before > that. I do wish there was more and I'm pretty sure that others do too, > but there isn't. In this way, I do agree with you and there is only so > much you can infer from data before the collation of polar-wide data > about 50 years ago and especially before satellite data became > available. So data is there, but you don't want to consider it. Yet you don't have a problem with accepting tree ring data to establish the history of the earth's temperture, even if it comes from just a small area. Yes, we can see how objective you are. > Everyone and every scientific organisation working in the cryosphere > feels that 30 years of excellent data is enough, Bruce, you don't: > believe what you will.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.
From: Dawlish on 4 May 2010 05:57 On May 4, 3:50 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > On May 3, 4:04 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On May 3, 2:39 am, Bruce Richmond <bsr3...(a)my-deja.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 30, 1:50 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 30, 3:03 pm, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 06:07:55 -0700, Dawlish wrote : > > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/images/arcticseaicenews/20100406_Figure2.png > > > > > > >> >>http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ > > > > > > >> > .........and your point is? > > > > > > >> My point is : let us first have a look at the data. Melting, not > > > > > >> melting ? Of what time scale, spring ? 5 years ? 30 years ?* Next > > > > > >> point, the sentence above is really puzzling. Is really ice melting > > > > > >> going to warm Artic ?** > > > > > >> When I put an ice cube in my whisky, will I expect it to warm ? Up to > > > > > >> the moment I read this press article, I ignored that melting ice could > > > > > >> warm something. > > > > > > > *So, weather (spring melt in one year), or climate (30-year trend). You > > > > > > are fudging. If you want to talk about weather, go discuss on a weather > > > > > > forum. > > > > > > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > > > > > the opposite.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > aaaaaaaaaaaarghhh. What else can you say to a deliberate > > > > misinterpretaion of "long term trend".- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > What long term trend? The graphs only go back to 1979.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > Circular argument really. It depends what you accept as a long term > > trend doesn't it? You don't accept 31 years but you cannot provide ice > > data that goes back further. There is data going back 50 years, but it > > is not in the public domain and there is sparse and ad-hoc data before > > that. I do wish there was more and I'm pretty sure that others do too, > > but there isn't. In this way, I do agree with you and there is only so > > much you can infer from data before the collation of polar-wide data > > about 50 years ago and especially before satellite data became > > available. > > So data is there, but you don't want to consider it. Don't I? Which part of "if you can provide the data, I'll consider it" did you miss? Yet you don't > have a problem with accepting tree ring data to establish the history > of the earth's temperture, even if it comes from just a small area. > Yes, we can see how objective you are. Do I? How would you know that as I've never discussed that with you, or on here, AFAIK. It's a shame we don't have accurate global temperature mesurements pre-1850. We have to rely on proxies (note the plural, tree rings are one of a range which scientists have used to construct past temperatures and there is bound to be argument and so there should be. I have no problem with that. I wish there was accurate data for thousands of years into the past, but there isn't. The work that has been done has been excellent and is highly believable, IMO, but it's a long way from perfect, as the scientists involved have said in every single paper that's been written (see Jones at al, Mann, Briffa et al). > > Everyone and every scientific organisation working in the cryosphere > > feels that 30 years of excellent data is enough, Bruce, you don't: > > believe what you will.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.- Hide quoted text - A typical denier comment. I'm afraid. Show me that's not true. > - Show quoted text -
From: Benj on 4 May 2010 14:59 On Apr 30, 10:03 am, Sirius <Sir...(a)provider.net> wrote: > From the data, is ice melting ? No, the trend of the last years is just > the opposite. Come on. Just look at your own data: > http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ See that huge difference between the magneta line and the current white ice? The northwest passage is open in the first time for centuries and shipping is pouring through the melted ice! Not only that but seas are dramatically rising causing residents in Louisiana and neighboring states to sprint for higher ground. Don't take my word for it. Just look at the propaganda from the Brit. sold- outs that Wormley always quotes! We doan need no stinkin' real science when we've got media to "spin" the data for us. The IPCC says that if we don't open that trillion dollar Chicago "cap and trade" exchange soon (before any actual global warming is proved... to quote the IPCC) we may all die!
From: Benj on 4 May 2010 15:01
On May 4, 5:57 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Glad to see everyone is allowing you to speak for them LOL.- Hide quoted text - > > A typical denier comment. I'm afraid. Show me that's not true. "Denier"? Now there's a nice "scientific" term. Just what I'd expect from a "criminal fraudster" like you. I guess that now proves that neither of us have anything intelligent to add to this debate. |