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: Dawlish on 4 May 2010 15:20 On May 4, 8:01 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > 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. I've set out my views about the 2 types of "denier" on another thread. I call them "deniers" as the either deny temperatures have risen over the last century, or so, or they deny that CO2 has anything to do with it. No worse. They are not nazis, or criminals and there is no association meant with anything else except a denial of the science of either. If you wish to read more into that, you are reading into it what isn't there, from me at least. If you don't like it, suggest another word to so aptly describe what they do. If you wish to call me a "crminal fraudster", you'd have to explain how I've committed criminal fraud. I doubt you could do that, could you?
From: Sirius on 4 May 2010 15:47 On Tue, 04 May 2010 11:59:13 -0700, Benj wrote : > 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? OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. > The northwest passage is open in the first time for centuries and > shipping is pouring through the melted ice! Nice, the northeast passage open again, after it had been closed by the little ice age for more than two centuries. It means a gain of thousands of miles for boats. > Not only that but seas are > dramatically rising causing residents in Louisiana and neighboring > states to sprint for higher ground. Sea ice melting will not cause the sea water to rise, but to slightly lower, because of the maximum density of water is 5°C. > 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! It is too late anyway.
From: spudnik on 4 May 2010 19:59 nor are most glaciers actually receding, although this fact is mainly unnoticed, because of a massive lack of historical data on virtually all glaciers. satellite telemetry has shown almost no change of Antarctic icesheets, but what else would one expect, considering that there is as much ice as can be accomodated, because "ice bergs do calve, period." > OK, NSIDC and NERSC don't agree. NERSC, who shows the years 2007, 2008, > 2009 and 2010, still shows 2010 with much more ice than 2007 and 2008. thus: I'm allowed to agree with Al Gore about one thing; am I not?... even though Mauna Loa is a weird place to measure CO2, it's still just one place, with a record since the '60s (I think). now, most of the effect of humans may not be the burning of Fossilized Fuels (tm), but the burning-up of soil biota & forests. (after all, oil comes out of the ground, by itself, under pressure -- even when we're pumping like crazy in the Gulf of Mexico and the Redondo Seep e.g.) thus: most of these things, you mention, are just theoretical interpretations from the Schroedinger's cat school of Copenhagen, "reifying the math" of the probabilities; they don't actually have any bearing on the correctness of QM or GR or SR or any thing, nor on your so-called theory. but, why do you say that conversation of momentum supposedly doesn't apply to a split quantum of light in some standard theory? and poor Nein Ein Stein believes that p = mv is a force and that F = ma is not, and some thing about Coriolis' force, merely from a didactic say-so of his (in some sort of pidgen English, which could be the whole problem). > - The future determines the past > - Virtual particles exist out of nothing > - Conservation of momentum does not apply to a downgraded photon pair --Light: A History! http://wlym.TAKEtheGOOGOLout.com
From: Bruce Richmond on 5 May 2010 00:49 On May 4, 5:57 am, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > 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? It's not my job to dig up data for you. Besides, last time I went to the trouble of tracking down specific info for you you ignored it and wrote, "OK Bruce, it's a case of believe what you will." The data isn't there in the form of direct measurements, but there is plenty of data to infer that the ice volume has been up and down, not just in steady decline as yiu wish to portray. > > 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. Tell me you have never defended Mann's hockey stick. Whatever, you admit below that you have no problem with it. But you do seem to have a problem with written reports of less ice in the past. Strange. > 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. > http://www.climatelogic.com/trends/north-atlantic/nao-and-barents-sea-climate.html Wow, that was hard. I'm sure I could find many more if I felt like wasting my time for you, but that isn't going to happen.
From: Benj on 5 May 2010 02:06
On May 4, 3:20 pm, Dawlish <pjg...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On May 4, 8:01 pm, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > > 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. > > I've set out my views about the 2 types of "denier" on another thread. > I call them "deniers" as the either deny temperatures have risen over > the last century, or so, or they deny that CO2 has anything to do with > it. No worse. They are not nazis, or criminals and there is no > association meant with anything else except a denial of the science of > either. If you wish to read more into that, you are reading into it > what isn't there, from me at least. If you don't like it, suggest > another word to so aptly describe what they do. > > If you wish to call me a "crminal fraudster", you'd have to explain > how I've committed criminal fraud. I doubt you could do that, could > you? Oh that's easy. By asserting that CO2 can have any significant effect on global warming. Or how about that melting ice actually "warms" the arctic? Or maybe you need to defend that "hockey stick" again. Making these false statements isn't just "opinion" it's provable scientific fraud. Since the plan is to create a trillion dollar "Cap and Trade" exchange in Chicago to allow financial gain from a gas that can't even effect climate, that sure sounds criminal to me. And anyway, the way I see it, it is YOU who is denying the science that suggests that CO2 bands are insufficient and CO2 concentrations too weak to be a factor in AGW. That makes YOU the "denier". Denier, Denier, Denier! Point Proven. Like I said. Use of propaganda techniques only proves you have an agenda with nothing to add to this debate. |