Reply With Quote
Gore's disciples need only faith.
Might as well talk religion...you'll get as much accomplished.
Really, what type of whacky weed is he smoking?
Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years
I already saw something in the Cryosphere site. If I compare an early September date of 1979 vs. 2009, there is a definite receding of the ice. However, the thickness of the 2009 ice is far thicker in the middle, supporting the theory of melting from Black Carbon falling near Alaska and Russia.
Look how much thicker the center of the ice is in 2009 vs. than 1979 even though there is less surface ice.
Then there is another inconvenient fact that Gore must not know about:
Notice that the ice rarely melts over the area that is deep ocean. Only over the shallower waters. This indicates that water temperature rather than air temperature has a greater influence on the bounds of the melting.
I don't thing we will ever come close to a complete arctic melt.
Opinions?
Gore's disciples need only faith.
Might as well talk religion...you'll get as much accomplished.
Or...
Forbes"Some of the models suggest that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months will be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years," Gore said. His office later said he meant nearly ice-free, because ice would be expected to survive in island channels and other locations.
In the summer months...not September...common now, you live up north...by end of July summer's over north of Denver...also..the thicker ice shifts, so it may seem denser, because it is, it is compacting...
You do realize that water tempature being more of a cause is not a detraction from the idea that artic sea ice will be gone soon, right? The oceans are warming - at a slower rate due to a much larger volume but warming none the less - just as the atmosphere is. They're not arguing that the atmosphere is warming, they're arguing that the Earth is warming.Really, what type of whacky weed is he smoking?
Gore: Polar ice may vanish in 5-7 years
I already saw something in the Cryosphere site. If I compare an early September date of 1979 vs. 2009, there is a definite receding of the ice. However, the thickness of the 2009 ice is far thicker in the middle, supporting the theory of melting from Black Carbon falling near Alaska and Russia.
Look how much thicker the center of the ice is in 2009 vs. than 1979 even though there is less surface ice.
Then there is another inconvenient fact that Gore must not know about:
Notice that the ice rarely melts over the area that is deep ocean. Only over the shallower waters. This indicates that water temperature rather than air temperature has a greater influence on the bounds of the melting.
I don't thing we will ever come close to a complete arctic melt.
Opinions?
I don't see how any thing you just posted somehow contradicts the idea that the sea ice will be gone soon.
C'mon Manny. It's a valid opinion. WC thinks we'll never get close.
Be sure and get a no bs definition of *close* before you put up any v-dollars.
There's 10s of Ms at risk in the Andes due to glaciers melting much faster than predicted, same true in Himalayas.
WC is shill for the oil/gas/coal industry, and he doesn't even know it.
sorta like you're a shill for the global warming crowd, but too stupid to realize that they don't give a about the world - just getting rich off of the cause.
Damn you're re ed, crutons.
ask anyone who has a feasible interest in that area for oil exploration, as if they give a as long they make a quick buck at the expense of ppl.....
What Al Gore and his followers say if in 10 to 20 years, the ice still hasn't melted and it's not as bad as he scared people into believing it was?
Don't go there...they probably think there's another Iraq under the North Pole ice....
Does anyone have an explanation on why the ice is thicker now though? That seems to me to be a fairly important fact.
I am not really that interested in this argument, as I figure the planet is going to solve the problem for us...period. Plus it wasn't that long ago scientists predicted an iceage is imminent...and I know they say, sometimes, this is something similar or part of it, but still, most of the stuff I have read says the GW is already a done deal.
Plus, I do know our orbit changes and at some point, there will be another ice age. Period.
But I am interested in why that ice would be thicker...that actually could mean this is at least partially due to the point the Earth is at on the solar plane.
LOL...
Dan, I am going by satellite imagery. You apparently missed my correlation with the thickness of the remaining ice for the same day of a different year. The ice starts receding about on the sporing equinox, and starts rebuilding just before the fall equinox. The only reason I chose 9/5 was it is the lowest sea ice area.
Look at any year, the trend remains. Play with the viewer and see yourself:
Viewer: The Cryosphere Today
Compare Daily Sea Ice
Graph showing 9/5 as the lowest sea ice area:
Well, I agree the sea waters are rising in temperature. It is however very minimal. Consider, if we attribute the 20 cm (8") rise in sea water over the last 100 years to thermal expansion, that is still a very small increase in temperature to increase the average sea height by 0.0056%.
I'm not going to look the numbers up again, but the 20 cm is 0.0056%. I remember that. I simply forget how much of a temperature increase it takes to do that.
When they stop talking about 65N Insolation, I will concur with that statement.
I see it as extremely important, and why I brought it up. You see, Greenland still has approximately the same ice as well. The center of Greenland's ice pack is thicker. My theory is that it causes the glaciers to flow faster from the extra mass. Gravity will have it's way. Now flowing faster, it doesn't have the same amount of time to heal and remain intact as it changes shape, therefor, it breaks up easier. Here are a couple links to consider:
NASA puts its weight behind warming signs
Please note the accompanying image of Greenland has the mountain ice gaining in thickness as the ice fronm the glaciers near the sea declines. The net ice volume is changed insignificantly:
This 2006 article confirms warming as seen by ice reduction of the Antarctic. I believe since, there have been signs of the opposite, but that's not the point.
Impact of Climate Warming on Polar Ice Sheets Confirmed
Statement of interest:
I know I saw more recent news about Antarctica gaining ice as well, Things are simply cyclical.In Greenland, the survey saw large ice losses along the southeastern coast and a large increase in ice thickness at higher elevations in the interior due to relatively high rates of snowfall. This study suggests there was a slight gain in the total mass of frozen water in the ice sheet over the decade studied, contrary to previous assessments.
Yes, but when. We are entering the low eccentricity point in the earths orbit that controls the total solar annual irradiance. A 400,000 years cycle. The earth will get the most solar heat in another 26,000 years before it starts cooling again.
Even though we have had slight warming, it causes more precipitation. That precipitation causes the ice packs to be denser. Snow and ice reflect most the radiation they receive. Exposed sea water absorbs most the radiation it receives. That's why I laugh at scientists using 65N insolation. They have it backwards. That works for land estimations because most the land is in the northern hemisphere, but not for the total energy the earth receives, because most the water is in the southern hemisphere. I continue to say it's not climatologists to listen to, but all disciplines of the earth sciences. Climatologists limit their view to a few parts of the science. They largely don't understand the ocean sciences. If we are to talk of global changes, then we must consider all things global.
Glaciers in southern China receding rapidly
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...,1222275.story
In Bolivia, Water and Ice Tell of Climate Change
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/14/sc...glacier&st=cse
etc, etc, etc in the overwhelming mountain of evidence of global warming, except if you're a shill for oil/gas/coal warming-deniers' conspiracy.
To believe the melting ice is something catastrophic, you'd have to show that this is somehow unusual or unprecedented. Unfortunately, there are no sattelite images during the little ice age (LIA) or medieval warm period (MWP). In lieu of actual temperature measurements, climate scientists have used proxies (ice cores, tree rings, etc.) to reconstruct temperatures for the last 1000 years or so. Their techniques for reconstructing the global temperature anomaly of the past 1000 years has come under tremendous scrutiny in the last few years, particularly the so-called "hockey stick" graph, by Mann et. al.
Here's a graphic that once appeared in an IPCC report, showing both the MWP and the LIA.
By comparison, here's Mann's "hockey stick", which appeared numerous times in the most recent IPCC reports and was also a star in Al Gore's sci-fi horror flick, An Inconvenient Truth. Notice that the MWP has vanished.
The hockey stick has been debunked by Canadian researchers McIntyre and McKitrick. There is a very nice blog by IowaHawk that explains in detail how to make your own "hockey stick" with a simple spreadsheet.
To me, one of the most damning statements I've read in the East Anglia emails is by Keith Briffa, a climate scientists who's proxy reconstrution trended downwards and thus didn't conform to the hockey team model. His proxies are the ones referred to by fellow scientists when they say "hide the decline".
"I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards 'apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data' but in reality the situation is not quite so simple."
Read the above statement carefully and really think about what it means.
People may also be interested in this site --> http://www.surfacestations.org/
ROFL....boutons...the poster child of non sequiturs.
He's high on all that green...money that is...from all of these dumb s lining his pockets.
There's tons of evidence over decades and 100s of years of global warming.
Climategate, a fabricated scandal created by paying to have computers criminally broken into, is just more smokescreen and mindless noise for the Vast Oil/Coal/Gas Warming Denier Conspiracy.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-15-2009 at 01:25 PM.
Like most of what Algore says - this is a complete lie. The scientist he cited said he doesn't know where Algore got that conclusion because it's just not true.
The High Priest of the Church of Global Climate Change is a liar and a fraud.
Psst. Hey, dumb . 100s of years? Really?
The whole thing is suppposed to be based on human industrial activity.
Want to rethink your position?
go back 200 years (2 is a plural) and check the rise in atmospheric CO2 since burning of coal and oil became industrialized.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
